← 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)

M/S Opto Circuits India Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputty Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 1315/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm It(Tp)A No.1315/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2011-2012 M/S.Opto Circuits India Limited The Deputy Commissioner Of No.38, Electronic City Road Income-Tax, Circle 5(1)(2) V. Bangalore – 560 100. Bangalore. Pan : Aaaco2165P. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Shiva Prasad Reddy, Itp Respondent By : Sri.Sumer Singh Meena, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 28.09.2022 Date Of Hearing : 28.09.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Final Assessment Order Dated 06.01.2016 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2011-2012. 2. There Is A Delay Of 171 Days In Filing This Appeal Before The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Along With An Affidavit Of Managing Director Of The Assessee, Stating Therein The Reasons For Belated Filing Of This Appeal. On Perusal Of The Reasons Stated, We Find That The Assessee By Mistake Had Filed An Appeal Before The Cit(A) (As Against The Final Assessment Order) & On Realizing The Mistake, Immediately The Assessee Filed Appeal Before The Tribunal. We Find There Is A Reasonable Cause For Belated Filing

For Appellant: Sri.Shiva Prasad Reddy, ITPFor Respondent: Sri.Sumer Singh Meena, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(15)(b)Section 92C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “A”, BANGALORE Before Shri Chandra Poojari, AM & Shri George George K, JM

ACIT (It) 3(1) (1), Mumbai vs. M/S. J.P.Morgan Indian Investment Company Mauritius Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the CO filed by the assessee is allowed and appeal filed by the revenue becomes infructuous as dismissed

ITA 2382/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2382/Mum/2021 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Acit-3(1)(1), M/S J. P. Morgan India R. No. 1628, 16Th Floor, Air Investment Company India Building, Nariman Mauritius Limited, बनाम/ Point, Mumbai-400 021 C/O- Srb & Associates Llp, Vs. 14Th Floor, The Ruby 29 Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar (W), Mumbai-400 028 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaacf0626J (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & Cross Objection No. 41/Mum/2022 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) M/S J. P. Morgan India Acit-3(1)(1), Investment Company R. No. 1628, 16Th Floor, Air India Mauritius Limited, Building, Nariman Point, बनाम/ C/O- Srb & Associates Mumbai-400 021 Vs. Llp, 14Th Floor, The Ruby 29 Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar (W), Mumbai-400 028 (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलधथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Milind Chavan, Ld. Dr प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Anish Thacker, Ld. Ar सुनवधईकीतधरीख/ : 18.05.2022 & 23.09.2022 Date Of Hearing घोर्णधकीतधरीख / : 27.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Milind Chavan, Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri Anish Thacker, Ld. AR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 144C

only. Thus, given that the said condition is not satisfied, the Ld. AO ought to have passed a final order under section 143(3) of the Act, within the time limit prescribed by section 153 of the Act (i.e. on or before 31 December 2018). The final order dated 11th