← 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)

Redisolve Software P Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in I

ITA 254/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 254/Chny/2016 & 521 To 524/Chny/2018 Assessment Years:2010-11, 2009-10, 10-11, 11-12, 12-13 M/S. Redisolve Software P. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 18, Cenotaph 1St Street, Alwarpet, Income Tax, Chennai 600 035. Corporate Circle 5(1)/5(2), [Pan:Aadcr3467N] Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjunraj C.A. For Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 22.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: The Appeal Filed By The Assessee In I.T.A. No. 254/Chny/2016 For The Assessment Year 2010-11 Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax –Chennai-5, Chennai Dated 12.03.2015 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short]. The Appeals Filed By The Assessee In I.T.A. Nos. 521, 522, 523 & 524/Chny/2018 Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 3, Chennai Dated

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjunraj C.A. for Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT
Section 10ASection 119(2)(b)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 263

claiming deduction under section 10A of the Act and the same was accepted by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Act dated 3 I.T.A. No.254/Chny/16 & I.T.A. Nos. 521 to 524/Chny/18 25.03.2013. 3.1 Subsequently, by exercising the power conferred under section ... which is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. Accordingly, the ld. CIT set aside the assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Act dated 25.03.2013 and directed the Assessing Officer to revise the assessment by disallowing the deduction claimed under section

Invesco Asset Management (India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. PCIT (Central), Mumbai-3, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 700/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.700/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2017-18) Invesco Asset Management बिधम/ Pcit (Central), Mumbai- (India) Pvt. Ltd. 3 Vs. 21St Floor, 2101 “A” Wing, Room No. 612, 6Th Floor Marathon Futurex, Lower Aayakar Bhavan, Parel, Mumbai-400013. Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400020. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccg3908J (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Niraj Seth Revenue By: Shri K. C. Salvamani (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 02/11/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/11/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Action Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-3, Mumbai Dated 07.03.2022 For Assessment Year 2017-18 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”).

For Appellant: Shri Niraj SethFor Respondent: Shri K. C. Salvamani (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 263

PCIT”) erred in invoking the provisions of section 263 of the Act and directing setting aside of the assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Act by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 11(1)(1), Mumbai (“the AO”) dated 3.4.2019 on the alleged ground that ... facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned PCIT erred in setting aside the assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Act by the AO in respect of issue of allowability of claim of ESOP expenses of Rs.11,30,93,503. The Appellant