← 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)

Pathare Prabhu Charities, Mumbai vs. CIT(Exemption), Mumbai

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

ITA 644/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 644/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Cit (Exemp.), Pathare Prabhu Charities 601, 6Th Floor, Cumballa 3 Pathare Prabhu Dnyati Hill, Mtnl Telephone Bhavan, Jagannath बिधम/ Exchange Building, Shankerseth Road Vs. Peddar Road, Dr. Gopalrao Thakurdwar, Deshmukh Marg, Mumbai-400 002 Mumbai-400 026 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaatp0303P (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Hiro Rai, Ld. Ar प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Praveen Shekhar, Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 04.08.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 01.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Impugned Order Dated 25.03.2022, Passed By Ld. Cit (Exemp.), Mumbai In His Revisionary Jurisdiction U/S 263 For Ay 2017-18. 2

For Appellant: Shri Hiro Rai, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Shekhar, Ld. DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JM & SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A

Twenty First Century Management Services Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Corporate Circle-3(1), Chennai

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

ITA 860/CHNY/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 860/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009 - 10 Twenty First Century The Acit, Management Services Ltd., Vs. Corporate Circle-3(1), G3 No.67, Eldams Road, Chennai Alwarpet, Chennai – 600 018. Pan: Aaact 2397L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : None ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 31.10.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Chennai, In Ita No.404(T)/Cit(A)-7/2016-17 Dated 21.02.2020. The Assessment Was Framed By The Acit, Corporate Circle-3(1), Chennai For The Assessment Year 2009-10 U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) Vide Order Dated 28.06.2016. 2. At The Outset, It Is Noticed That This Appeal Is Delayed By 169 Days. This Appeal Was Filed Before Tribunal Only On 26.10.2020 & As Per Form 36, The Order Of Cit(A) Was Received On 11.03.2020. The Assessee Has Filed Condonation Petition Stating That The Delay Was Due To The Spread Of Covid-19 Pandemic & Nationwide Lockdown Imposed By The Government From 25.03.2020. The Hon’Ble Supreme Court In Miscellaneous Application No.665 Of 2021 Vide Order Dated 23.03.2020 Has Given Directions That The Delay Are To Be Condoned During This Period 15.03.2020 To 14.03.2021 & They Have Condoned The Delay Up To 28.02.2022 In Miscellaneous Application No.21 Of 2022 Vide Order Dated 10.01.2022. In Term Of The Directions Of Hon’Ble Supreme Court, We Condone The Delay In Filing Of This Appeal By Assessee & Admit The Appeal For Adjudication.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 47

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘सी’ "यायपीठ,चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी महावीर "संह, उपा"य

M/S. Swathi Traders, Tirupur vs. ACIT, Circle-2, Tirupur

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

ITA 738/CHNY/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 738/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014 - 15 M/S. Swati Traders, The Acit, 6/8, College Road, Vs. Circle -2, 1St First Cross, Tirupur. Tirupur – 641 602. Pan: Abvfs 9743E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri T. Banusekar, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 31.10.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Coimbatore-3 In Appeal No.Cit(A),Coimbatore-3/10448/2016-17 Dated 28.07.2020. The Assessment Was Framed By The Acit, Circle-2, Tirupur For The Assessment Year 2014-15 U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) Vide Order Dated 27.12.2016. 2. The Only Issue In This Appeal Of Assessee Now Argued Before Us Is That The Cit(A) Erred In Upholding The Addition Made By The Ao Being Difference In Valuation Of Closing Stock Of Gold Ornaments At Rs.6,53,24,552/-. For This, Assessee Has Raised Various Grounds Running Into 13 Numbers But All Those Are Argumentative, Exhaustive & Hence, Need Not Be Reproduced.

For Appellant: Shri T. Banusekar, CAFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)Section 145Section 145(2)Section 145A

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ,चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी महावीर "संह, उपा"य

M/S. India Pistons Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, CC - 2(3), Chennai

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

ITA 3389/CHNY/2019[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Oct 2022AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 3389/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 1999-2000 India Pistons Ltd., The Acit, Huzur Gardens, Sembium, Vs. Corporate Circle-2(3), Perambur, Chennai Chennai – 600 011. Pan: Aaaci 1439E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 31.10.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Chennai, In Ita No.79/Cit(A)-6/2009-10 Dated 19.09.2019. The Assessment Was Framed By The Acit, Company Circle-Ii(3), Chennai For The Assessment Year 1999-2000 U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) Vide Order Dated 11.12.2009. 2. The First Issue In This Appeal Of Assessee Is As Regards To The Order Of Cit(A) Confirming The Action Of Ao In Disallowing The Pre- Operative Expenses Of Existing Business Claimed In Respect Of Expansion Of Existing Business At Sengundram, Chennai. For This, Assessee Has Raised Following Ground:- “Rejecting The Entire Claim Of Pre Operative Expenses Of Rs.2,89,03,774/- In Respect Of The Expansion Of The Existing Business At Sengundram, Chennai & Granting Deduction U/S.35D At 5%”

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 35DSection 80I

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘सी’ "यायपीठ,चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी महावीर "संह, उपा"य

DCIT Corporate Circle 4(2), Chennai vs. Kamarajar Port Ltd. (Formerly Known As M/S. Ennore Port Ltd.), Chennai

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

ITA 2450/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 2450/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013 - 14 The Dcit, Kamarajar Port Ltd., Corporate Circle – 4(2), Vs. (Formerly Known As Ennore Port Chennai – 34. Ltd.,) 4Th Floor, Super Speciality Diabetic Centre (Erstwhile Dlb Building), Rajaji Salai, Chennai -600 001. Pan: Aaace 9013G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. Sudharshan, A.C.A सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 31.10.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Chennai, In Ita No.30/Cit(A)-6/2016-17 Dated 18.06.2018. The Assessment Was Framed By The Acit, Corporate Circle 2(1), Chennai For The Assessment Year 2012-13 U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) Vide Order Dated 21.03.2016. 2. The First Issue In This Appeal Of Revenue Is Against Eh Order Of Cit(A) Deleting The Disallowance Of Expenses Relatable To Exempt Income Made By Ao By Invoking The Provisions Of Section 14A R.W.Rule 8D Of The Income Tax Rules, 1962 (Hereinafter The ‘Rules’). For This, Revenue Has Raised Four Grounds Which Are Exhaustive & Argumentative & Hence, We Will Not Reproduce The Same.

For Appellant: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCITFor Respondent: Shri R. Sudharshan, A.C.A
Section 143(3)Section 14A

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘सी’ "यायपीठ,चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी महावीर "संह, उपा"य

Disha Construction, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT, Mumbai-17, Mumbai

ITA 955/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.955/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2017-18) Disha Construction बिधम/ Pcit, Mumbai-17 201, Square One, Gulmohar R. No. 120, 1St Floor, Vs. Road No.1, Vile Parle (W), Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To Mumbai-400049. C-43, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadfd9171G (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ashok Bansal/Ajay Daga Revenue By: Shri S. H. Usmani (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 19/09/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/10/2022 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-17, [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Pcit”], Mumbai Dated 14.03.2022 For Assessment Year 2017-18 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”).

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Bansal/Ajay DagaFor Respondent: Shri S. H. Usmani (DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 199Section 263Section 43C

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