← 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)

M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cent Cir-1(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1466/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Bledeputy Commissioner Of Income Tax V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Central Circle- 1(4) Ahura Centre, B- Wing Room No. 902, 9Th Floor 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Osd) V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd. Central Circle- 1(4) Ahura Centre, B- Wing Room No. 902, 9Th Floor 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) & M/S. Ultratech Cement Limited V. Dcit, Central Circle- 1(4) [Acit, Cc] Room. No 902, 9Th Floor Ahura Centre, B-Wing, 2Nd Floor Pratishtha Bhavan Mahakali Caves Road Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Maharishi Karve Road Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 35D

LD.CIT(A)] erred in confirming the order passed by the learned Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle 1(4), Mumbai (DCIT) under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (IT Act). 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... assertion that the petitioner suppressed facts is singularly lacking. What accentuates the situation is the fact that after initial scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) of the Act, 1961, the petitioner preferred an appeal before CIT [A] and thereafter pursuant to the order passed by CIT [A], the assessment

Wartsila India Pvt Ltd., Navi Mumbai vs. Dy CIT 15(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 480/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistri, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, CIT D.R
Section 14ASection 92CSection 92C(1)

assessee) under section 14A read with rule 8D to the total income of the assessee and thereby framed the assessment under section 143(3) read with section 144C(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’). 6. The assessee carried the matter before

Wartsila India Pvt Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. Dy CIT 15 (3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 467/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistri, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, CIT D.R
Section 14ASection 92CSection 92C(1)

assessee) under section 14A read with rule 8D to the total income of the assessee and thereby framed the assessment under section 143(3) read with section 144C(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’). 6. The assessee carried the matter before

DDIT (It) 2(1), Mumbai vs. Reuters Ltd, Mumbai

Appeals are disposed off

ITA 4550/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Assessment Year 2000 – 01

For Appellant: Shri Niraj D Sheth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Umap, DR

statement that the appellant cannot be construed to have a permanent establishment in India. 11. The learned assessing officer passed an order under section 143 (3) of the act on 23rd of March 2006. The learned assessing officer was of the view that all these three agreements license agreement, distribution ... These appeals are directed against the order dated 23rdFebruary 2004, passed by the learned CIT(A), in the matter of assessment under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1999-2000. 13. Grievances raised by the parties are as follows: Grievances of the assessee

ACIT 5(1), Mumbai vs. Essar Teleholdings Ltd, Mumbai

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 7412/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri Kirthivasan RajagopalFor Respondent: Shri Girish Dalvi, Special Counsel
Section 14(1)Section 143(3)Section 238Section 7

Year 2008-09, whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had partly allowed appeal of the Assessee against the Assessment Order, dated 31/12/2010, passed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). At the outset, in response to a query from the Bench

ADIT (It)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Reuters Ltd, Mumbai

Appeals are disposed off

ITA 4575/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Assessment Year 2000 – 01

For Appellant: Shri Niraj D Sheth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Umap, DR

statement that the appellant cannot be construed to have a permanent establishment in India. 11. The learned assessing officer passed an order under section 143 (3) of the act on 23rd of March 2006. The learned assessing officer was of the view that all these three agreements license agreement, distribution ... These appeals are directed against the order dated 23rdFebruary 2004, passed by the learned CIT(A), in the matter of assessment under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1999-2000. 13. Grievances raised by the parties are as follows: Grievances of the assessee

Refinitiv Ltd., Mumbai vs. ADIT (It) RG 2(1), Mumbai

Appeals are disposed off

ITA 3617/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Assessment Year 2000 – 01

For Appellant: Shri Niraj D Sheth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Umap, DR

statement that the appellant cannot be construed to have a permanent establishment in India. 11. The learned assessing officer passed an order under section 143 (3) of the act on 23rd of March 2006. The learned assessing officer was of the view that all these three agreements license agreement, distribution ... These appeals are directed against the order dated 23rdFebruary 2004, passed by the learned CIT(A), in the matter of assessment under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1999-2000. 13. Grievances raised by the parties are as follows: Grievances of the assessee

Refinitiv Ltd., Mumbai vs. ADIT (It) 2(1), Mumbai

Appeals are disposed off

ITA 5182/MUM/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Assessment Year 2000 – 01

For Appellant: Shri Niraj D Sheth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Umap, DR

statement that the appellant cannot be construed to have a permanent establishment in India. 11. The learned assessing officer passed an order under section 143 (3) of the act on 23rd of March 2006. The learned assessing officer was of the view that all these three agreements license agreement, distribution ... These appeals are directed against the order dated 23rdFebruary 2004, passed by the learned CIT(A), in the matter of assessment under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1999-2000. 13. Grievances raised by the parties are as follows: Grievances of the assessee

ADIT (It) RG 2, Mumbai vs. Reuters Ltd, Mumbai

Appeals are disposed off

ITA 5155/MUM/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Assessment Year 2000 – 01

For Appellant: Shri Niraj D Sheth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Umap, DR

statement that the appellant cannot be construed to have a permanent establishment in India. 11. The learned assessing officer passed an order under section 143 (3) of the act on 23rd of March 2006. The learned assessing officer was of the view that all these three agreements license agreement, distribution ... These appeals are directed against the order dated 23rdFebruary 2004, passed by the learned CIT(A), in the matter of assessment under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1999-2000. 13. Grievances raised by the parties are as follows: Grievances of the assessee

Refinitiv Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 2(1), Mumbai

Appeals are disposed off

ITA 1287/MUM/2009[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Assessment Year 2000 – 01

For Appellant: Shri Niraj D Sheth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Umap, DR

statement that the appellant cannot be construed to have a permanent establishment in India. 11. The learned assessing officer passed an order under section 143 (3) of the act on 23rd of March 2006. The learned assessing officer was of the view that all these three agreements license agreement, distribution ... These appeals are directed against the order dated 23rdFebruary 2004, passed by the learned CIT(A), in the matter of assessment under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1999-2000. 13. Grievances raised by the parties are as follows: Grievances of the assessee

The DDIT(It)-2(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Reuters Ltd, Uk, Mumbai

Appeals are disposed off

ITA 1979/MUM/2008[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Assessment Year 2000 – 01

For Appellant: Shri Niraj D Sheth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Umap, DR

statement that the appellant cannot be construed to have a permanent establishment in India. 11. The learned assessing officer passed an order under section 143 (3) of the act on 23rd of March 2006. The learned assessing officer was of the view that all these three agreements license agreement, distribution ... These appeals are directed against the order dated 23rdFebruary 2004, passed by the learned CIT(A), in the matter of assessment under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1999-2000. 13. Grievances raised by the parties are as follows: Grievances of the assessee

The DDIT(It)-2(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Reuters Ltd, Uk, Mumbai

Appeals are disposed off

ITA 1978/MUM/2008[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Assessment Year 2000 – 01

For Appellant: Shri Niraj D Sheth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Umap, DR

statement that the appellant cannot be construed to have a permanent establishment in India. 11. The learned assessing officer passed an order under section 143 (3) of the act on 23rd of March 2006. The learned assessing officer was of the view that all these three agreements license agreement, distribution ... These appeals are directed against the order dated 23rdFebruary 2004, passed by the learned CIT(A), in the matter of assessment under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1999-2000. 13. Grievances raised by the parties are as follows: Grievances of the assessee

Refinitiv Ltd., Mumbai vs. The DDIT (It)-2(1), Mumbai

Appeals are disposed off

ITA 1709/MUM/2008[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Assessment Year 2000 – 01

For Appellant: Shri Niraj D Sheth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Umap, DR

statement that the appellant cannot be construed to have a permanent establishment in India. 11. The learned assessing officer passed an order under section 143 (3) of the act on 23rd of March 2006. The learned assessing officer was of the view that all these three agreements license agreement, distribution ... These appeals are directed against the order dated 23rdFebruary 2004, passed by the learned CIT(A), in the matter of assessment under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1999-2000. 13. Grievances raised by the parties are as follows: Grievances of the assessee

Refinitiv Ltd, Mumbai vs. The DDIT (It)-2(1), Mumbai

Appeals are disposed off

ITA 1708/MUM/2008[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Assessment Year 2000 – 01

For Appellant: Shri Niraj D Sheth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Umap, DR

statement that the appellant cannot be construed to have a permanent establishment in India. 11. The learned assessing officer passed an order under section 143 (3) of the act on 23rd of March 2006. The learned assessing officer was of the view that all these three agreements license agreement, distribution ... These appeals are directed against the order dated 23rdFebruary 2004, passed by the learned CIT(A), in the matter of assessment under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1999-2000. 13. Grievances raised by the parties are as follows: Grievances of the assessee

Refinitiv Ltd., Mumbai vs. DDIT (I.T) - 2(1), Mumbai

Appeals are disposed off

ITA 3422/MUM/2006[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Assessment Year 2000 – 01

For Appellant: Shri Niraj D Sheth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Umap, DR

statement that the appellant cannot be construed to have a permanent establishment in India. 11. The learned assessing officer passed an order under section 143 (3) of the act on 23rd of March 2006. The learned assessing officer was of the view that all these three agreements license agreement, distribution ... These appeals are directed against the order dated 23rdFebruary 2004, passed by the learned CIT(A), in the matter of assessment under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1999-2000. 13. Grievances raised by the parties are as follows: Grievances of the assessee

ADIT (It)-2(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Reuters Ltd., Mumbai

Appeals are disposed off

ITA 3366/MUM/2006[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Assessment Year 2000 – 01

For Appellant: Shri Niraj D Sheth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Umap, DR

statement that the appellant cannot be construed to have a permanent establishment in India. 11. The learned assessing officer passed an order under section 143 (3) of the act on 23rd of March 2006. The learned assessing officer was of the view that all these three agreements license agreement, distribution ... These appeals are directed against the order dated 23rdFebruary 2004, passed by the learned CIT(A), in the matter of assessment under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1999-2000. 13. Grievances raised by the parties are as follows: Grievances of the assessee

DDIT (International I. T) 2(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Reuters on Line S.A, Mumbai

Appeals are disposed off

ITA 5379/MUM/2005[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Assessment Year 2000 – 01

For Appellant: Shri Niraj D Sheth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Umap, DR

statement that the appellant cannot be construed to have a permanent establishment in India. 11. The learned assessing officer passed an order under section 143 (3) of the act on 23rd of March 2006. The learned assessing officer was of the view that all these three agreements license agreement, distribution ... These appeals are directed against the order dated 23rdFebruary 2004, passed by the learned CIT(A), in the matter of assessment under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1999-2000. 13. Grievances raised by the parties are as follows: Grievances of the assessee

The DDIT (I.T) 2(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Reuters Ltd., Mumbai

Appeals are disposed off

ITA 8464/MUM/2004[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Assessment Year 2000 – 01

For Appellant: Shri Niraj D Sheth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Umap, DR

statement that the appellant cannot be construed to have a permanent establishment in India. 11. The learned assessing officer passed an order under section 143 (3) of the act on 23rd of March 2006. The learned assessing officer was of the view that all these three agreements license agreement, distribution ... These appeals are directed against the order dated 23rdFebruary 2004, passed by the learned CIT(A), in the matter of assessment under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1999-2000. 13. Grievances raised by the parties are as follows: Grievances of the assessee

The DDIT (I.T) 2(1) vs. M/S. Reuters Ltd

Appeals are disposed off

ITA 8463/MUM/2004[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Assessment Year 2000 – 01

For Appellant: Shri Niraj D Sheth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Umap, DR

statement that the appellant cannot be construed to have a permanent establishment in India. 11. The learned assessing officer passed an order under section 143 (3) of the act on 23rd of March 2006. The learned assessing officer was of the view that all these three agreements license agreement, distribution ... These appeals are directed against the order dated 23rdFebruary 2004, passed by the learned CIT(A), in the matter of assessment under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1999-2000. 13. Grievances raised by the parties are as follows: Grievances of the assessee

Refinitiv Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Dy DIT (I.T) 2(1), Mumbai

Appeals are disposed off

ITA 8348/MUM/2004[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Assessment Year 2000 – 01

For Appellant: Shri Niraj D Sheth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Umap, DR

statement that the appellant cannot be construed to have a permanent establishment in India. 11. The learned assessing officer passed an order under section 143 (3) of the act on 23rd of March 2006. The learned assessing officer was of the view that all these three agreements license agreement, distribution ... These appeals are directed against the order dated 23rdFebruary 2004, passed by the learned CIT(A), in the matter of assessment under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1999-2000. 13. Grievances raised by the parties are as follows: Grievances of the assessee