← 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)

Ravi Mohanlal Bhalotia, Bhiwandi vs. CIT Appeals, NFAC, New Delhi

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

ITA 118/MUM/2022[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2022AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudharyravi Mohanlal Bhalotia Vs. Cit(A), 12/1, Midc Saravali, Nfac Bhiwandi, Dist. Delhi Thane- 421302 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Abipb1342B Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Sudhir Hunargikar & Madhav Khisti Respondent By : Mahita Nair Date Of Hearing 23.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 29.11.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed The Nfac, Dated 23.11.2022 For A.Y. 2015-16. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. The Learned Cit (A) National Faceless Appeal Centre Is Not Justified In Determining The Total Income Of At Rs.72,77,155/- As Against Returned Income Of Rs. 12,67,080/-. 2. The Learned Cit (A) National Faceless Appeal Centre Has Erred In Making Addition Of Rs.60,10,075/- On Account Of Non-Genuine Purchases Despite The Fact That Ledger Confirmations Along With Copies Of Purchase Bills Were Submitted During The Course Of E-Proceedings.

For Appellant: Sudhir Hunargikar &For Respondent: Mahita Nair
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

Ravi Mohanlal Bhalotia Vs. CIT(A) NFAC 1 ITA No.118/Mum/2022 A.Y.2015-16 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI

Chevron Metal Products Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Assi.Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1001/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 999, 1000 & 1001/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12 & 2013-14) M/S. Chevron Metal बिधम/ Acit, Central Circle 8(2) Products Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. 22-A Panton Bunder Road, Mumbai-400050. Near, Britannia Darukhana, Raey Road, Mumbai- 400010. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacc2190E (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rajesh Shah Revenue By: Shri Hiren Bhatt (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 03/11/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/11/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-50 Mumbai Dated 21.03.2022 For The Assessment Year 2011-12 Confirming Both The Quantum As Well As Penalty Levied By The Ao U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”).

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Hiren Bhatt (Sr. AR)
Section 144Section 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN

Chevron Metal Products Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1000/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 999, 1000 & 1001/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12 & 2013-14) M/S. Chevron Metal बिधम/ Acit, Central Circle 8(2) Products Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. 22-A Panton Bunder Road, Mumbai-400050. Near, Britannia Darukhana, Raey Road, Mumbai- 400010. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacc2190E (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rajesh Shah Revenue By: Shri Hiren Bhatt (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 03/11/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/11/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-50 Mumbai Dated 21.03.2022 For The Assessment Year 2011-12 Confirming Both The Quantum As Well As Penalty Levied By The Ao U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”).

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Hiren Bhatt (Sr. AR)
Section 144Section 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN

Longrange Commodities Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT -8, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 335/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.335/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2017-18) M/S. Longrange बिधम/ Pcit-8 Commodities Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 611, 6Th Floor, Vs. Office No. 525-527 Carnac Aayakar Bhawan, Bunder, 5Th Floor, 49, P.D.P. Maharishi Karve Road, Mello Road, Nav Vyapar Mumbai-400020. Bhawan, Mumbai-400009. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcl6621J (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Smt. Shailja Rai (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 03/11/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/11/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-08, Mumbai Dated 22.02.2021 For Assessment Year 2017-18 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”).

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Shailja Rai (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 263

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN

M/S Anushka Soft-Tel Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-12(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 2227/MUM/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2227/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2008-09) M/S. Anushka Soft-Tel Pvt. बिधम/ Kailash Khandelwal Ltd. Ito, Ward-12(1)(2) Vs. Bldg. No. 3, Shop No. 007, Room No. 146A, 1St New Friend Co-Op Housing Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, Society New Link Road, Maharishi Karve Road, Near Atharva College Csr Churchgate, Mumbai- Complex, Kandivali (W), 400020. Mumbai-400067. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aagca8006M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Poojan Mehta Revenue By: Smt. Shailja Rai (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 03/11/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/11/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-20, Mumbai Dated 18.02.2020 For Ay. 2008-09. 2. At The Outset, We Take Note Of The Ground No. 2 Which Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Passing The Ex-Parte Order.

For Appellant: Shri Poojan MehtaFor Respondent: Smt. Shailja Rai (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN