“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)

Bhagwati Suresh Modi, Palanpur vs. ITO, Int Tax Ward-3(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all fourteen appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 742/MUM/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Kishor R. Gheewala, ARFor Respondent: Shri Purushottam Tripuri, CIT DR

Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144CSection 153(3)Section 153CSection 69

Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act). As assessee having house property income and also the income from other sources, the draft order under Section 143(3) read with section 144C of the Act was passed on 30th September , 2021. Bhagwati Suresh Modi; A.Ys

Vijay Bag Singh Rajpurohit, Mumbai vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 591/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailvijay Bag Singh Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Rajpurohit Plot No. 4, Income Tax, Vikas Bunglow Behind Cpc Bengaluru Bahari Petrol Pump, 560100 Sion, Trombay Road Chembur, Mumbai 400071 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Adqpr7848L Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Vipul Shriyan Respondent By : Vranda U Matkari Date Of Hearing 27.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 28.04.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): The Present Appeal Filed By The Assesse Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Nfac, Delhi Dated 27.12.2022 For A.Y. 2020-21. The Assesse Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Commissioner Of Income Appeals National Faceless Appeal Centre, (Ld Cit(A)) Erred In Upholding Disallowance Under Section 36(1)(Va) Of The Income Tax Act, 1001 (The Act) By Cpc, Bengaluru Under Intimation U/S 143(1) Of The Act In Respect Of Employees Contribution Made To The Provided Fund & Other Funds Which Was Paid After The Due Date Prescribed Under The Respective Law But Before The End Of The Financial Year & Due Date Of Filling Return Of Income Is Covered U/S 430 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Cita Erred In Noting That The Hearing Notices Were Remained Uncompiled While The Appellant Had Uploaded Request For Adjournment Against Notice Dated

For Appellant: Vipul ShriyanFor Respondent: Vranda U Matkari

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 430Section 44A

P a g e | 1 Vijay Bag Singh Rajpurohit Vs. ACIT, CPC Bengaluru IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F

Gautam Puranmal Poddar, Kalyan vs. ACIT, Circle 3(2), Kalyan

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 584/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Ita Nos. 583 & 584/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Gautam Puranmal Poddar Acit, Circle-3(2), (Huf), 2Nd Floor, Rani Mansion, Plot No. Rl 1 Milap Nagar Midc Vs. Above Canara Bank, Resioential Area Dombivli East Murbad Rd. Kalyan, Kalyan-421 301. Thane-421 301. Pan No. Aaehg 6868 A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Jayant Bhatt, Ca Revenue By : Mr. Paresh Deshpande, Dr : Date Of Hearing 27/04/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/04/2023 Order

For Appellant: Mr. Jayant Bhatt, CAFor Respondent: Mr. Paresh Deshpande, DR

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND MS. KAVITHA

Gautam Puranmal Poddar, Kalyan vs. ACIT, Circle 3(2), Kalyan

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 583/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Mr. Jayant Bhatt, CAFor Respondent: Mr. Paresh Deshpande, DR

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND MS. KAVITHA

Anant Plastic Industries, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-30(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 460/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Haresh P. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

Appeal.” 2. Briefly stated facts necessary for consideration and adjudication of the issues at hand are : on the basis of assessment framed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act by making addition of Rs.5,97,792/- on account of non genuine purchases to the extent

Apex Diamonds, Mumbai vs. ACIT-19(1), Mumbai

ITA 422/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Apex Diamonds, Acit, 19(1), Ae-4012, Matru Mandir Building, 1St & 2Nd Floor, Bharat Diamond Bourse, G-Block, Vs. Nana Chowk, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bhatia Hospital Lane, Maharashtra- 400 051 Javji Dadaji Marg, Pan: Aaofa7813R Grant Road West, Maharashtra- 400 007 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Hirawat, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, D.R

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

amount of Rs.6,28,502/- to the total income of the assessee and thereby 3 M/s. Apex Diamonds framed the assessment under section 143(3) read with 147 of the Act. 3. The assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A) by way of filing appeal who has confirmed

Babulal Hajarimal Jain, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 19(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 274/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Shashank Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Chetan M. Kacha, D.R

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

total income of the assessee being 12.5% of Rs.3,70,79,423/- i.e. unproved purchases and thereby framed the assessment under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act. 4. The assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A) by way of filing appeal who has confirmed

Sai Prerna Co-Op. Credit Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 17(3) (2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 216/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sai Prerana Co-Op Society Ltd., Ito-7(3)(2), 317, Puran Aasha Bldg. Gr. Fl. Room No. 126, 1St Floor, Narashi Natha Street, Katha Vs. Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C- Bazar Musjid Bunder (W), 43 Block, Bandra Kurla Mumbai-400 009. Complex, Bandra (East) Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadts 5638 M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Ruby Srivastava & Mr. Bharat Kumar, Ca Revenue By : Mr. Milind S. Chavan, Dr Date Of Hearing : 27/04/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 28/04/2023 Order

For Appellant: Ms. Ruby Srivastava &For Respondent: Mr. Milind S. Chavan, DR

Section 139(1)Section 14Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80P

noticed that in the present case the assessment 10. It can be noticed that in the present case the assessment was under Section 143(3) of the Act, during which th was under Section 143(3) of the Act, during which th was under Section 143(3 ... assessment order under Section between the date of the assessment order under Section between the date of the assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Act and the date when the reasons were 143(3) of the Act and the date when the reasons were 143(3

Kongsberg Maritime Cm India Pvt. Ltd., Navi Mumbai vs. Addll/Jt/Dy/ACIT/ITO-NFAC, Delhi

ITA 336/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Sinha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Anoop Hiwase, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 92C

Assessing Officer (AO) in consonance with the orders passed by the Transfer Pricing Officer(TPO)/Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)[CIT (A)] under section 143(3) r.w.s. 2 M/s. Kongsberg Maritime CM India Pvt. Ltd. 144C(13) read with section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short

ACIT Central Circle-2(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. G Nine Modular Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3214/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale ()

For Appellant: Mr. Naresh Jain, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI PAVAN

ACIT Central Circle-2(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. G Nine Modular Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3213/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale ()

For Appellant: Mr. Naresh Jain, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI PAVAN

ACIT Central Circle-2(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. G Nine Modular Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3212/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale ()

For Appellant: Mr. Naresh Jain, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI PAVAN

Bhagwati Suresh Modi, Palanpur vs. ITO, Int Tax Ward 3(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all fourteen appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 3075/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Kishor R. Gheewala, ARFor Respondent: Shri Purushottam Tripuri, CIT DR

Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144CSection 153(3)Section 153CSection 69

Ingredion India Private Limited, Navi Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle-15(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 2532/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ketan K. Ved a/wFor Respondent: Dr. Samuel Pitta

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 92CSection 92C(1)Section 92D

SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M. The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned final assessment order dated 31/07/2022, passed under section 143(3) r/w section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"), pursuant to the directions dated 22/06/2022 issued by the learned Dispute Resolution ... directions issued by the learned DRP, the AO passed the impugned final assessment order under Ingredion India Pvt. Ltd. ITA no.2532/Mum./2022 section 143 (3) r/w section 144C(13) of the Act. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. 5. During the hearing, the learned Authorised Representative (“learned

The National Ex-Serviceman Co-Op Garage Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 17(2)(4), Mumbai

ITA 4611/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Chetan M. Kacha, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 41(1)

appeal.” 2. Briefly stated facts necessary for consideration and adjudication of the issues at hand are : on the basis of assessment framed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) determining the total income of Rs.22,88,440/- which has been adjusted/set off against

DCIT CC 3(2) Cen RG 3, Mumbai vs. World Sports (India) P . Ltd, Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed and CO as well as appeal of the learned Assessing Officer is dismissed

ITA 5329/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Co No. 267/Mum/2019 (Arising In Ita No.5329/Mum/2017 For A.Y. 2010-11)

For Appellant: Shri P. J. PardiwalaFor Respondent: Shri Purushottam Tripuri, DR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 153Section 153ASection 92CSection 92C(1)

learned CIT (A)] for A.Y. 2010-11, wherein appeal filed by the assessee against the assessment order passed under Section 153A read with section 143(3) read with section 144C (13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated 27th May, 2014 passed by the Asst. Commissioner of Income ... Consequent to that draft Assessment order under Section 144C (1) of the Act was passed on 25th March, 2014 and final order under Section 143(3) of the Act was passed on 27th May, 2014. 07. For that assessment year the time limit for passing the order under Section 153B

World Sports Group (India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-20, Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed and CO as well as appeal of the learned Assessing Officer is dismissed

ITA 5240/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Co No. 267/Mum/2019 (Arising In Ita No.5329/Mum/2017 For A.Y. 2010-11)

For Appellant: Shri P. J. PardiwalaFor Respondent: Shri Purushottam Tripuri, DR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 153Section 153ASection 92CSection 92C(1)

Ingram Micro India Pvt.Ltd.(Earlier Known As Ingram Micro India Ltd.), Mumbai vs. DCIT(Osdii), Cr-7 (Now DCIT, CC-4(4), Mumbai

ITA 2268/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2023AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri M.M. GolvalaFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamat

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

take up appeal for the Assessment Year 2009-10 The present appeal is directed against the Assessment Order dated, 2. 28/01/2014, passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟], as per directions, dated 11/12/2013, issued ... accepting the arm‟s length price determined by the Appellant for international transactions. Thereafter, assessment order, dated 20/03/2014, was passed under Section 143(3) of the Act determining total income at INR 1,82,12,64,770/- after making, inter alia, disallowance of commission expenses and disallowance of percentage

Ingram Micro India Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT OSD II Cen RG 7, Mumbai

ITA 1980/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2023AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri M.M. GolvalaFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamat

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

Goldstar Finvest P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 46, Mumbai

ITA 7426/MUM/2013[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2023AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Om Prakash Kantassessment Year: 2002-03

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Chokshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Dharmvir Yadav, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Briefly stated facts necessary for consideration and adjudication of the issues at hand are : on the basis of completed assessment framed under section 143(3) read with 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) determining the total income at Rs.4,63,769/- by making addition