← 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 Saivenugopal, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw 6(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 386/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.386/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shri D. Saivenugopal, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, New No. 11, Old No. 5, Sami Chetty Non Corporate Ward 6(1), Street, Pudupet, Chennai 600 002. Chennai. [Pan:Betps6046G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Seetharaman, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 29.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14.12.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 16, Chennai, Dated 18.01.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is In The Business Of Trading In Broilers (Md Of M/S. Saraswathi Broiler P. Ltd. & Filed Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2013-14 On 17.05.2014 Admitting Total Income Of ₹.12,09,160/-. The Assessment Was Completed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In 2

For Appellant: Shri G. Seetharaman, C.AFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 271ASection 44A

return of income for the assessment year 2013-14 on 17.05.2014 admitting total income of ₹.12,09,160/-. The assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in 2 I.T.A. No. 386/Chny/19 short] dated 30.03.2016 by assessing total income of the assessee

Corp Circle-1(2), Chennai vs. Cccl-Edac Energy Ltd, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3223/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 3223/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012 - 13 The Dcit, Cccl-Edac Energy Ltd., Corporate Circle 1(2), Vs. 88, Spic House, Mount Road, Chennai. Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. Pan: Aaecc 0167F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G. Tarun, Advocate सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 14.12.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14.12.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Arising Out Of The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 1, Chennai In Ita No.264/Cit(A)-1/2014-15 Dated 24.08.2018. The Assessment Was Framed By The Acit. Corporate Circle 1(2), Chennai For The Assessment Year 2012-13 U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) Vide Order Dated 31.12.2014. 2. The Only Issue In This Appeal Of Revenue Is Against The Order Of Cit(A) Deleting The Addition Made By Ao On Retention Money Held By Contractee. For This, Revenue Has Raised The Following Two Effective Grounds:- “2. The Ld. Cit(A) Failed To Appreciate On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case That Retention Money Held By Contractees Of The Assessee Having Been Excluded From The Computation Of Total Income, The Claim Of Expenditure Retention Money Payable To Its Sub-Contractors Can Only Be Allowable On Payment & Not On Accrual.

For Appellant: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCITFor Respondent: Shri G. Tarun, Advocate
Section 143(3)

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

Shree Sainath Enterprises, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Range-7(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 4959/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleshree Sainath Vs. Dcit, Enterprises, (Now Central Rang – 7(3) Converted Into Shree Room No. 655, 6Th Sainath Enterprises Floor, Aayakar Constructions & Bhavan, Maharshi Developers Pvt Ltd.,) Karve Road, 412, Floor – 4, 17G Mumbai – 400020. Vardhaman Chambers Cawasji Patel, Horniman Circle, Fort Mumbai – 400001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abdfs2374M Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Niraj Seth.Ar Respondent By : Shri S.K Jain.Dr Date Of Hearing 19.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 29.11.2022 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) – 49, Mumbai Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal; Shree Sainath Enterprises, Mumbai. 1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Upholding The Disallowance Of Interest Of Rs. 46,94,439/-U/Sec36(1)(Iii).

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Seth.ARFor Respondent: Shri S.K Jain.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL