← 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)

National Stock Exchange of India Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax -Circle-7(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1093/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1093/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Dcit Circle-7(1)(1), National Stock Exchange Of Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. India Ltd. बिधम/ Road, Mumbai-400 020 Exchange Plaza, Bandra Vs. Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai-400 051 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaacn1797L (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Jehangir Mistry & Shri Harsh Kapadia, Ld. Ars प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Chetan M. Kacha, Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 02.08.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 31.10.2022 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 30.03.2022, Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Quantum Of Assessment Passed

For Appellant: Shri Jehangir Mistry & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Chetan M. Kacha
Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250Section 263

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

ACIT Central Cir6(4), Mumbai vs. M/S. Mariana Infrastructurte Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2395/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhthe Asstt. Commissioner Vs. Mariana Infrastructure Of Income Tax, Central Limited, M-62 &63, Circle -6(4) 1St Floor, Connaught Room No. 1925, 19Th Place, New Delhi Floor, Air India Building, 110 001 Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aafcm2619H Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ajay Chandra Respondent By : K. Gopal Date Of Hearing 13.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 31.10.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): The Present Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-54, Mumbai Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The A.O U/S 143(3) Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. Whether The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Allowing The Claim Of Deduction Of Revenue Of Cancelled Transaction Of Rs.27,78,65,132/- Cancelled In Subsequent Year From The Book Profit Though Section 115Jb Is A Self-Contained Code Where Even The Additions & Deductions From The Book Profit Are Specified The Provisions Of Section 115Jb Des Not Allow Any Such Deductions?."

For Appellant: Ajay ChandraFor Respondent: K. Gopal
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 194I

ITA No.2395/Mum/20121 A.Y. 2017-18 1 The ACIT, CC-6(4) Vs. Mariana Infrastructure Ltd. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE

ITO -19(2) (4), Mumbai vs. Shri Prakash Chandra Surajmal Gandhi, Mumbai

ITA 2272/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 2272/मुं/2021 ("न.व 2011-12) Income Tax Officer – 19(2)(4), Room No.217, 2Nd Floor, Matru Mandir, Grant Road, Mumbai 400 007 ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Shri Prakash Chandra Surajmal Gandhi, 41, Ashutosh Co-Op Society, 38A, Nepeansea Road, Mumbai 400 006 Pan: Aacpg-9520-B ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Ms. Beena Santosh ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri A.K. Vaidyalingan सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 03/08/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 31/10/2022 आदेश/ Order This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals) National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short 'The Cit(A)’] Dated 05/10/2021 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Revenue Is In Appeal Against The Order Of Cit(A) In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.27,31,200/- On Account Of Sale Consideration Received On Sale Of Shares Of Action Financial Services Limited. The Assessing Officer Made Addition Of The Entire Sale Consideration Of Shares As Unexplained Income Under Section 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [ In Short ‘The Act’].

For Appellant: Ms. Beena SantoshFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Vaidyalingan
Section 143(3)Section 68

proceedings made addition of the entire sale proceeds under section 68 of the Act. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 28/12/2018 passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) vide impugned order deleted the addition