← All Phrases

“Section 143(3)”

Section References (mined)Section 143Section 143(3)45,044 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 143(3) is National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT (229 ITR 383), cited in 5,834 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 143(3)

National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT
229 ITR 383 · 1998 · Supreme Court
5,834
citing judgments

Appellate authorities can consider new claims and additional grounds if the relevant facts are already on record. The purpose of assessment is to correctly determine tax liability, allowing both parties to raise issues.

Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji
167 ITR 471 · 1987 · Supreme Court
3,926
citing judgments

Delay in filing appeals, when supported by sufficient or justifiable cause, should be condoned with a liberal approach to ensure substantial justice. This principle prioritizes the cause of justice over mere technicalities.

CIT v. Kabul Chawla
380 ITR 573 · 2016 · High Court
3,235
citing judgments

In a search assessment under Section 153A, additions can only be made for completed or non-abated assessment years if incriminating material relevant to those years is found during the search, although notice under Section 153A(1) is mandatorily issued for six assessment years preceding the search.

Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT
243 ITR 83 · 2000 · Supreme Court
2,943
citing judgments

For revision under Section 263, the Assessing Officer's order must be both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue; if either condition is not met, the revisionary jurisdiction cannot be invoked. An order is not erroneous merely because the Assessing Officer did not record the details of enquiries conducted, provided due enquiries were made.

CIT v. Vegetable Products Ltd.
88 ITR 192 · 1973 · Supreme Court
2,664
citing judgments

When two equally plausible interpretations of a taxing provision are possible, or when conflicting views exist from non-jurisdictional High Courts, the interpretation that favors the assessee must be adopted.

CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory
359 ITR 565 · 2013 · High Court
2,590
citing judgments

A penalty notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) is invalid if it fails to specify whether the penalty proceedings are initiated for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. This non-specification vitiates the penalty proceedings.

Pr. CIT v. Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd.
149 Taxmann.com 399 · 2023 · Supreme Court
2,379
citing judgments

An assessment under section 153A is without jurisdiction if there is an absence of incriminating material for an unabated assessment year.

CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd.
38 ITD 320 · 1991 · ITAT
2,267
citing judgments

An appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal can be dismissed for non-prosecution or treated as unadmitted when the appellant fails to appear, cooperate, or show diligence, in accordance with Rule 19(2) of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules. The law aids the vigilant, not those who sleep on their rights.

Judgments citing Section 143(3)

Val Organics Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT 4(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1603/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhval Organics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Plot No. 95, Chadha Income Tax, Circle 4(3)(1) Building, Wadala, Room No. 649, 6 Th Floor, Mumbai – 400031 Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacv4456E Appellant .. Respondent [ Appellant By : Shekhar Gupta Respondent By : Ms. Zeenia Handa Date Of Hearing 18.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 24.07.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Filed By The Assesse Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-4, Mumbai, Dated 30.03.2023 For A.Y. 2018- 19. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. The Learned Principal Cit Has Erred In Law & On The Facts Of The Case In Reopening The Assessment U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act. 2. The Learned Principal Cit Has Erred In Law & On The Facts Of The Case In Holding That The Deduction U/S. 80G To The Extent Of Rs.18,83,000/- Was Not Allowable Since The Amount Was Spent On Csr Activities. 3. The Assessee Craves Leave To Add, Alter Or Amend The Above Grounds Of Appeal.”

For Appellant: Shekhar GuptaFor Respondent: Ms. Zeenia Handa
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 801A(4)(iv)Section 80GSection 80I

P a g e | 1 Val Organics Pvt.Ltd. Vs. DCIT, C-4(3)(1) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

Sanchit Vinod Jain, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1287/MUM/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2023AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1287/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Sanchit Vinod Jain बिधम/ National Faceless 601, Shrimad Darshan, Shri Assessment Centre, Delhi. Vs. Rajchandra Mandir Marg, Ghatkopar, Mumbai- 400077. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Ajlpj4491L (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Akshay Jain/Mahaveer Jain Revenue By: Shri Ram Krishna Kedia (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 05/07/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24/07/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 21.02.2023 For Ay. 2014-15 Confirming The Action Of The Ao Levying Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) Of Rs.11,088/-. 2. Brief Facts Regarding Penalty Levied Is That The Assesse Had Filed The Return Of Income Of Rs.11,64,790/-. The Assessment Was Completed U/S 143(3) Of The Act At An Income Of Rs.12,00,671/- After Making An Addition U/S 68 Of The Act To The Tune Of Rs.35,884/-. The Addition Of Rs.35,884/- Was Because During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, It Was Observed By Ao That Assessee Had Invested In Alleged Penny Stock Scrip Of M/S Sun Asian; & Has Derived Income By Way Of Sale Of The Such Scrip Of M/S Sun Asian Of 2800 Shares For A Total Consideration Of Rs.13,60,884/-.On Being Asked, The Assessee

For Appellant: Shri Akshay Jain/Mahaveer JainFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishna Kedia (Sr. AR)
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, AM

Ronit Capital Management Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 4 (2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 6679/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6679/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Ronit Capital बिधम/ Ito-4(2)(1) Management Ltd. 644, Aayakar Bhavan, M. Vs. 233, Shreeji Industrial K. Road, Mumbai- Estate, Subhash Road, 400020. Jogeshwari (E)-400060. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaach9239D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Dharmesh Shah/Ms. Mitali Gopani Revenue By: Smt Riddhi Mishra (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 30/05/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24/07/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Company Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-9, Mumbai Dated 23.08.2019 For Ay. 2012-13 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Addition To The Tune Of Rs.10,43,77,000/- U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). 3. Brief Facts Are That The Assessee Had Filed Return Of Income On 30.09.2012 Declaring Total Income To The Tune Of Rs.70,768/-. Later, The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny. The Ao Noted That The Assessee Had Only Partly Complied With The Notice Issued By Him On 30.01.2015 & Therefore In View Of The Non-Compliance, He Framed Best Judgment Assessment U/S 144 Of The Act, Making Several Additions Totalling Rs 68.83 Crores, Which Are As Under: -

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah/Ms. MitaliFor Respondent: Smt Riddhi Mishra (DR)
Section 133(6)Section 144Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN