← 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)

D.C.I.T., Circle-6(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Cabcon India (P) Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals in I

ITA 1129/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sonjoy Sarma

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

seeps aiciteher aiferaz0T WII 'w' Uls, BYctapIAl di IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘A’ BENCH, KOLKATA vd oft

Skyline Millars Limited, Mumbai vs. Pr. Comm of Income Tax, Mumabi 6, Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee is fully allowed

ITA 776/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalskyline Millars Ltd. 24 Po Box No. 9208, Kurla Kirol Road, Ghatkopar (W), Mumbai-400086. Pan: Aaact2755J ...... Appellant Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-6, Room No. 501, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Dalpat Shah, Ca Respondent By : Sh. Rakesh Garg, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 22/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16/12/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-6, Mumbai Dated 31.03.2022 Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’) For A.Y. 2017-18. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. Order U/Sec. 263 Of The Income Tax Act Is Bad-In-Law.

For Appellant: Sh. Dalpat Shah, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Rakesh Garg, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

issues raised by the Ld. PCIT u/s. 263 are already covered by the notice issued u/s 142(1) while framing the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act and the same has been duly complied with by the assessee vide it submission dated

M/S Veto Switchgears and Cables Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT, 13(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee filed by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 2634/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalm/S Veto Switchgears Vs. Acit, 13(3)(2) & Cables Limited Room No. 229, 2 Nd Floor, 4Th Floor, Mumbai Aayakar Bhavan, Maharashtra Maharishi Karve Road, 400 058 Mumbai – 400 020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaccv4990K Respondent .. Appellant

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Vranda U Matkarni
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 438Section 43B

ITA No.2634/Mum/2022 A.Y. 2017-18 1 M/s Veto Switchgears and Cables Ltd Vs ACIT, 13(3)(2) IN THE INCOME

Faze Three Autofab Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle-6(1)-2., Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical

ITA 2607/MUM/2022[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2022AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Anuj KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Shri Vranda U. Matkarni
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 43A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F ” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM ITA

Faze Three Autofab Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle-6(1)-2, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical

ITA 2606/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Anuj KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Shri Vranda U. Matkarni
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 43A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F ” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM ITA

Faze Three Autofab Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT, Circle 6(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical

ITA 2605/MUM/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2022AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Anuj KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Shri Vranda U. Matkarni
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 43A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F ” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM ITA

Faze Three Autofab Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT, Circle 6(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical

ITA 2604/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Anuj KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Shri Vranda U. Matkarni
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 43A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F ” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM ITA

Viveck Mathreja, Mumbai vs. ACIT National Faceless Assessment Centre, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2594/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalviveck Mathreja Vs. Acit, National Face Less Plot No. 5, Trishul Assessment Centre Hatkesh Co-Op, Hsg.Sty, 2Nd Floor, Kautilya Road No. 6, Jvpd, Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Ville Parle (W), Complex, Bandra Mumbai – 400 056 Mumbai - 400050 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Acxpm8278M Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: N.R. AggarwalFor Respondent: Vranda U Matkarni
Section 139(1)Section 139(2)Section 143(3)Section 22(1)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

ITA No.2594/Mum/2022 A.Y.2011-12 1 Viveck Mathreja Vs. ACIT, NFAC IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Jinesh Ashwinkumar Matalia, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the revenue i

ITA 1324/MUM/2022[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2022AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Shailesh ParmarFor Respondent: Hemantkumar Chimanlal
Section 132Section 153CSection 69C

ITA Nos. 132 to1324/Mum/2022 & C.O. 117 to 120/Mum/2022 1 Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-3(3)(1) Vs. M/s Jinesh

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, 3(3)(1)., Mumbai vs. M/S Jinesh Ashwingkumar Matalia, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the revenue i

ITA 1321/MUM/2022[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2022AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Shailesh ParmarFor Respondent: Hemantkumar Chimanlal
Section 132Section 153CSection 69C

ITA Nos. 132 to1324/Mum/2022 & C.O. 117 to 120/Mum/2022 1 Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-3(3)(1) Vs. M/s Jinesh

Seth Industries Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT C 2(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4685/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.4685/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/S Seth Industries Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Acit Circle- 2(3)(2) 16, Ashoka Shopping Centre, Room No. 552, Vs. Lokmanya Tilak Marg, Aayakar Bhavan Crawford Market Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400001. स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaecs9189D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Salil Kapoor & Shri Sunil Lalchandani Revenue By: Shri. Mahender Ahuja सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing: 21/11/2022 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement; 16/12/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor & Shri SunilFor Respondent: Shri. Mahender Ahuja
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

without jurisdiction as these proceedings are initiated beyond 4 years and the original assessment order was passed under section 143(3). Also there is no failure on part of the assessee to disclose truly and fully all material facts. 5. That the approval taken

Ankur Energy Resources Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Range 9(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 3326/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleankur Energy; Resources Vs. Dcit, Range 9(1)(2) Pvt Ltd., Mumbai – 400020. Plot No. 115/It-03, Raj Chambers, Rk Parmhans, Andheri (E), Mumbai – 400 069. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaica9929M Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Yogesh Joigode.Ar Respondent By : Smt. Shailja Rai, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 26.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 21.10.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, Mumbai Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri. Yogesh Joigode.ARFor Respondent: Smt. Shailja Rai, CIT DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(2), Bangalore vs. M/S. Harman Connected Services Corporation India Private Limited( Formerly Known As Symphoney Teleca Corporation India Private Limited), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 631/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am It(Tp)A No.631/Bang/2016 : Asst.Year 2011-2012 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S.Harman Connected Income-Tax, Circle 3(1)(2) Services Corporation India V. Bangalore. Private Limited (Formerly Symphony Telca Corporation India Pvt. Ltd.) No.3 & 3A, Eoiz Industrial Area, Survey No.85 & 86, Sadarmangala Village, K.R.Puram, Hobli Bangalore – 560 066 Pan : Aabcg5658E. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Smt.Tanmayee Rajkumar, Advocate Respondent By : Sri.K.Sankar Ganesh, Jcit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 16.12.2022 Date Of Hearing : 15.12.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : This Appeal At The Instance Of The Revenue Is Directed Against Final Assessment Order Dated 29.01.2016 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2011-2012. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is A Company Incorporated Under The Companies Act, 1956. The Assessee Is Engaged In Providing Software Development Services To Its Group Companies As Well As Third Parties. For The Assessment Year 2011-2012, The Return Of Income Was Filed On 30.11.2011 Declaring Gross Total

For Appellant: Smt.Tanmayee Rajkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.K.Sankar Ganesh, JCIT-DR
Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40Section 92C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “A”, BANGALORE Before Shri George George K, JM & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

Bhairabnala Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Limited, Kalna vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Burdwan

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 111/KOL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2022AY 2017-18
Section 143(2)Section 154Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, पीठ “A-SMC” , कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH “A-SMC”KOLKATA Before

Rooprekha Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 300/KOL/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri G. Hukugha Sema, CIT, D/R
Section 250Section 68

। आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "यायपीठ, कोलकाता । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, HON’BLE

M/S. C & E Ltd., Kolkata vs. Principal CIT - 4, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 636/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(2)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 80I

learned assessing officer had correctly accepted the substantial expansion which had accepted in the initial year and passed the order under Section 143(3) in the 2nd year of expansion (Ay 2013-14) after giving the 100% deduction. 11. The learned assessing officer had also correctly accepted the substantial expansion ... which had accepted in the initial year and passed the order under section 143(3) in the 3rd year of expansion (AY 2014-15) after giving the 100% deduction. 4 AY: 2013-14 M/s. C & E Ltd. 12. We also enclose the assessment order of 2014-15 for your kind

Janhavi Promoters Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 13(2), Kolkata

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2046/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sonjoy Sarma

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250Section 68

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण कोलकाता 'बी' पीठ, कोलकाता में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘B’ BENCH, KOLKATA डॉ. मनीष

Samriddhi Petroproducts Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-3(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 580/HYD/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2014-15 Samriddhi Petroproducts Vs. Dy. C.I.T Private Limited Circle 3(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aarcs2499F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Advocate Mohd Afzal Revenue By: Shri Kumar Aditya, Dr Date Of Hearing: 13/12/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 15/12/2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27.09.2022 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac, Delhi Relating To A.Y. 2014-15. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Wholesale & Retail Trade Of Auto Gas. It Filed Its Return Of Income On 30.09.2014 Declaring Nil Income After Setting Off Of Brought Forward Losses Of Rs.28,54,332/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & The Assessing Officer Completed The Assessment U/S 143(3) On 12.09.2016 Determining The Total Income At Rs.2,16,571/-. Subsequently, The Learned Cit Assumed

For Appellant: Advocate Mohd AfzalFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Aditya, DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

ITA 580 of 2022 Samriddhi Petropfoducts P Ltd आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(1), Hyderabad vs. Nipro Medical India Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1410/HYD/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri Kishor Phadke, ARFor Respondent: Shri Naveen Kumar, DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 37(1)

loss at Rs. (-)23,87,15,864/- under section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”). Assessment under section 143(3) of the Act was complete by order dated 22/12/2018 determining the loss at Rs. 4,33,40,323/- by making addition of Rs. 3 crores

Nsk Builders, Trichy vs. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-1, Trichy

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 47/CHNY/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Respondent: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 144

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ,चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी महावीर "सह, उपा"य