“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)

M/S. Shakambhari Ispat & Power Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle 3(3), Kolkata

ITA 1194/KOL/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Jan 2026AY 2016-2017

For Appellant: Shri S. Jhajharia, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 147Section 148

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY

Ishares Core Msci Total International Stock Etf (As A Successor to Ishare Core Taotal International Stock Mauritius Company ), Mumbai vs. Dy CIT (Int. Tax)-2(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6774/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailishares Core Msci Emerging Markets Etf (As A Successor To Ishares Core Emerging Markets Mauritius Company) C/O Ernst & Young Llp, 17Th Floor, The Ruby, 29, Senapati Bapat Marg, ............... Appellant Dadar (West), Mumbai - 400028 Pan : Aafci3337N V/S Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (International Tax) - 2(2)(2) Room No.606, 6Th Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, ……………… Respondent C-41 To C-43, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400051 Ishares Msci All Country Asia Ex Japan Etf C/O Ernst & Young Llp, 17Th Floor, The Ruby, 29, Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar (West), Mumbai - 400028 Pan : Aabti7439L ............... Appellant

For Appellant: Shri Pranav GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 70Section 70(2)

BENCH The present appeals have been filed by separate assessees against the separate final assessment orders passed under section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”), pursuant to the separate directions issued by the learned Dispute Resolution Panel-1, Mumbai (“learned ... following grounds: - “On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellant craves leave to prefer an appeal against the order under section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) of the Act dated 31 July 2025, issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation

Ishares Core Msci Emerging Markets Etf (As A Successor to Ishares Core Emerging Markets Mauritius Company, Mumbai vs. DCIT (Tp) 2(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 6051/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2026AY 2023-24

For Appellant: Shri Pranav GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 70Section 70(2)

Ishares Msci All Country Asia Ex Japan Etf, Mumbai vs. DCIT (Int. Tax)-2(2)(2), Mumbai

ITA 6050/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Pranav GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 70Section 70(2)

Order – 02/01/2026 ORDER PER BENCH The present appeals have been filed by separate assessees against the separate final assessment orders passed under section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”), pursuant to the separate directions issued by the learned Dispute Resolution Panel ... following grounds: "On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellant craves leave to prefer an appeal against the order under section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) of the Act dated 31 July 2025, issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation

Avance Technologies Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2(2), Mumbai

In the result, ground no. 5 of the appeal is

ITA 5420/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Smt. Renu Jauhri(Physical Hearing) Avance Technologies Limited Acit, Central Circle – 2(2), 209, Kapadia Chambers, 599 Jss Vs Mumbai 8Th Floor, Pratishtha Bhavan, Road, Marine Lines, Mumbai – 400002. [Pan: Aaeca5763B] M.K. Road, Mumba I- 400020. Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 115BSection 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 254(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER& SMT. RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

DCIT Central Circle- 7(1), Mumbai vs. Yardley Investment and Trading Company Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

Accordingly, the cross-objection filed by the assessee is allowed, and the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4725/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year : 2013-14 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle - 7(1), Room No.653, 6Th Floor Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, ……………. Appellant Mumbai – 400020 V/S Yardley Investment & Trading Company Pvt. Ltd. 1, Pearl Mansion N, 91, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400020 ……………. Respondent Pan: Aaacy0327M

For Appellant: Shri Snehal ShahFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 153ASection 250Section 68

undisputed that the original return of income filed by the assessee was not selected for scrutiny assessment proceeding under section 143(3) of the Act. Subsequently, a search and seizure operation under section 132(1) of the Act was conducted in the case of Jatia Group and other related Groups ... relation to the material seized during the course of search, the AO vide order dated 31.03.2021 passed under section 153A read with section 143(3) of the Act, inter alia, proceeded to make the addition under section 68 of the Act in respect of loan amounting to Rs.7

Inu Exports Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO 12(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4070/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Smt. Renu Jauhri(Hybrid Hearing) Inu Exports Private Limited Ito, 12(2)(2), Mumbai Room No. 145, 1St Floor, Aayakar Office No. 33, Shrinaman Plaza, Vs Behind Shoppers Stop Kandivali, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai, Maharashtra - 400067. Mumbai – 400020. [Pan: Aaaci 6806 M] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 254(1)Section 270Section 270ASection 274

declaring loss of Rs. 87.92 crore. The case was selected for scrutiny. Assessment was completed on 20.12.2019 under section 143(3). During the assessment, the assessing officer noted that assessee debited Rs. 87.83 crore on account of claim and settlement. The assessing officer (AO) on further perusal of record noted

DCIT, Central Circle-5(4), Mumbai vs. Sunil Bhagwatlal Dalal, Mumbai

In the result, both the Revenue’s appeals are partly allowed and

ITA 4047/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Justice (Retd.) C. V. Bhadang&

Section 143(3)Section 69Section 69A

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI JUSTICE (RETD.) C. V. BHADANG, PRESIDENT & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR

DCIT, Central Circle 5(4), Mumbai vs. Sunil Bhagwatlal Dalal, Mumbai

In the result, both the Revenue’s appeals are partly allowed and

ITA 4046/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Justice (Retd.) C. V. Bhadang&

Section 143(3)Section 69Section 69A

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI JUSTICE (RETD.) C. V. BHADANG, PRESIDENT & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR

Smt Rashmi Ramesh Damani, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 17(1), Mumbai

ITA 1129/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri M. P. LohiaFor Respondent: Shri Vikas Chandra

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had partly allowed the appeal against the Assessment Order, dated 30/12/2016, passed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’] for the Assessment Year 2014-2015. 2. The Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal ... convinced. The Assessing Officer rejected the contentions raised by the Assessee concluding as under vide Assessment Order dated 30/12/2016 passed under Section 143(3) of the Act: ―4.3. While considering the facts of the case it is to be noted that the National Spot Exchange Ltd (NSEL) operated

Surendra Garg HUF, Mumbai vs. ITO- 19(3)(4), Mumbai

ITA 583/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Dharan GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh

Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 68

short ‘KGN Enterprises'), during the relevant previous years. The aforesaid reassessment proceedings culminated into passing of the Assessment Order(s) under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act whereby the transaction of purchase/sale of share of KGN Enterprises were held to be pre- determined transactions and additions ... whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had partly allowed the appeal of the Assessee against the Assessment Order, dated 29/12/2017, passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') for the Assessment Year 2012-2013. 2.1. The Assessee

Surendra Garg HUF, Mumbai vs. ITO - 19(3)(4), Mumbai

ITA 300/MUM/2024[2012-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2026AY 2012-23

For Appellant: Shri Dharan GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh

Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 68

short ‘KGN Enterprises’), during the relevant previous years. The aforesaid reassessment proceedings culminated into passing of the Assessment Order(s) under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act whereby the transaction of purchase/sale of share of KGN Enterprises were held to be pre- determined transactions and additions ... whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had partly allowed the appeal of the Assessee against the Assessment Order, dated 29/12/2017, passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for the Assessment Year 2012-2013. The Assessee has raised

M/S Sapphire Fintech Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT-3(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 595/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Prabhash Shankarm/S. Sapphire Fintech Private Limited 6Th Floor-1, Plot 165, 161/169 Hirachand Fulchand Trust Building, Perin Nariman Street, Fort, ............... Appellant Mumbai – 400001 Pan: Aahcs0312H V/S Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax - 3(3)(1), ……………… Respondent Room No.609, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai, Mumbai – 400020

For Appellant: Shri Mahaveer Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, Sr.AR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

during the assessment proceedings for the assessment years 2007-08 and 2010-11, the Assessing Officer (“AO”), vide order dated 26.12.2016 passed under section 143(3) of the Act, disallowed the interest expenses claimed by the assessee on the non-genuine/bogus loans. The learned CIT(A), vide impugned 3 ... income, requesting to disregard the suo motu disallowance of Rs. 9 Lakh made by the assessee. 10. The AO, vide order passed under section 143(3) of the Act, disagreed with the submissions of the assessee on the basis that there is no provision under the Act to make

M/S Sapphire Fintech Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT-3(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 594/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Mahaveer Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, Sr.AR

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 68

application money of Rs. 1,21,00,000/- received during the year. 5. The Assessing Officer (“AO”), vide order dated 25.03.2015 passed under section 143(3) of the Act, disagreed with the submissions of the assessee and held that the assessee only received dividend income during the year under consideration

Thermo Fisher Scientific India P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 15(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 7294/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna, Shri Anmol MahajanFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 32(1)

Order - 02/01/2026 ORDER PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M. The assessee has filed the present appeals against the separate final assessment order passed under section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") pursuant to the directions issued by the learned Dispute Resolution Panel ... Bansi S. Mehta & Co., Chartered Accountants, and some judicial rulings. The Assessing Officer (“AO”), vide draft assessment order dated 26.03.2015 passed under section 143(3) read with section 144C(1) of the Act, disagreed with the submission of the assessee on the following basis:- (a) No such intangible assets, such

Thermo Fisher Scientific India P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 15(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 2014-

ITA 7393/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna, Shri Anmol MahajanFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 32(1)

Thermo Fisher Scientific India P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 15(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 577/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna, Shri Anmol MahajanFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 32(1)

Thermo Fisher Scienftific India P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 15(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 2014-

ITA 1236/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna, Shri Anmol MahajanFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 32(1)

Asst CIT Cir 29, Mumbai vs. Shoppers Stop Ltd, Mumbai

Accordingly, respectfully following the above decisions of the Tribunal, we confirm the aforesaid action of the CIT(A). All the grounds raised by the Revenue are, therefore, dismissed

ITA 6977/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawala &For Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary

Section 143(3)Section 14A

whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had partly allowed the appeal against the Assessment Order, dated 31/12/2013, passed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’] for the Assessment Year 2011-2012. The present appeal was disposed off vide Order dated 23/12/2015 which ... regular scrutiny and assessment was completed at total income of INR.1,06,31,23,300/- vide Assessment Order, dated 31/12/2013, passed under Section 143(3) of the Act after making following additions/disallowances: (a) The Assessing Officer made a disallowance of INR.3,53,14,668/- under Section 14A of Act read

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-30, New Delhi vs. Sh. Radhey Shyam Bansal, New Delhi

Accordingly. Hence, the AO is directed to restrict the additions only to the income on account of commission @0.50% as mentioned in the table above. These grounds may be treated as partly allowed

ITA 5721/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 1Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

ITA No.5719 to 5721/Del/2025 ACIT Vs. Radhey Shyam Bansal IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “G” BENCH: NEW DELHI