← 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)

Sericulturists Cum Farmers Service Co-Operative Society Limited, Bengaluru vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Bengaluru

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

ITA 425/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Sericulturists Cum Farmers Service Co-Operative Society Ltd., The Principal 01Sfcs Building, Commissioner Of Near Bus Stop, Income Tax – 2, Sarjapura Town, Bengaluru. Vs. Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru – 562 125. Pan: Aaaas6468H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nitesh Ranjan, Ca Revenue By : Shri Praveen Karanth, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 14-09-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26-09-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 30/03/2022 Passed By Ld.Pr.Cit-2, Bangalore U/S. 263 Of The Act Relating To A.Y. 2017-18 On Following Grounds Of Appeal. Tax Effect Relating To Grounds Of Appeal Each Ground Of Appeal The Order Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bengaluru-2 ("Pr. Cit") Dated 30-Mar-2022, Passed Under I. Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act,1961 ("The Act") N.A Insofar It Is Against The Appellant, Is Opposed To The Law, Weight Of Evidence, Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case.

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Ranjan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Karanth, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 57Section 68Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

case of inadequate inquiry. The Learned Pr. CIT erred in not understanding the fact that scrutiny assessment has already been completed VI. under section 143(3) of the Act examining the issues raised in the order under section 263 of the Act. The Learned Pr.CIT erred in not appreciating

Nemchand Khetshi Dedhia, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal), Mumbai

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

ITA 1871/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1871/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Nemchand Khetshi Dedhia बिधम/ Cit(A) Row House No. 4, Shree Income Tax Department, Vs. Tilak Complex, Eksar Road, National Faceless Appeal Devki Nagar, Borivli West, Centre (Nfac), Delhi. Mumbai-400103, Maharashtra, India. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacpd3444K (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Mr. Chetan Kacha (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 01/09/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/09/2022 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. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/ Nfac, Delhi Dated 28.06.2022 For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Of The Revenue Reads As Under: - “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Passed An Order U/S 250 Of Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated 28.06.2022 Having Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022- 23/1043629976(1) Dismissing The Grounds Of Appeal & Thereby Dismissing The Appeal Without Considering The Submissions Made By The Appellant. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Dismissing The Grounds Of Appeal & Thereby Dismissing The Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Ao (I.E. Ld. Cit(A) Confirmed The Order Passed By The Ld. Ao) U/S 143(3) Dated 22.12.2018, Wherein He Has (I) Made An Addition Of Rs.34,00,000/- U/S 68 Of Income Tax Act, 1961 On Account Of The Cash

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. Chetan Kacha (Sr. AR)
Section 143(3)Section 156Section 234BSection 250Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, VP AND SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM

DCIT - CC- 6(4), Mumbai vs. Shri. Narendra Gehlaut, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1429/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1429/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14) Dcit, Central Circle-6(4) बिधम/ Shri Narendra Gehlaut Room No. 1925, 19Th Floor, 875, Sector-17B, Vs. Air India Building, Nariman Gurugram, Haryana- Point, Mumbai-400021. 122001. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aazpg9630K (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K. Gopal Revenue By: Shri Mahesh Akhade (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 06/09/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/09/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-54, Mumbai Dated 21.10.2021 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Are As Under: - “(1) Whether, On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Holding That The Additions / Disallowances Made In The Assessment Order Is Not Sustainable As They Are Without Reference To Any Incriminating Material Found During The Search, Without Appreciating That The Department Has Filed An Slp Against The Decision Of The Hon'Ble High Court Of Bombay In The Case Of Continental Warehousing Corporation (Nhava Sheva) Limited Reported In 374 Itr 645 (Bom), Which Has Been Admitted & Directed To Be Listed By The Hon'Ble Supreme Court Of India, Vide Order Dated 12.10.2015 Reported In [2015] 64 Taxmann.Com 34 (Sc) ?”

For Appellant: Shri K. GopalFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Akhade (DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 68

held that the assessment has attained finality, then the Assessing Officer while passing the independent assessment order under section 153A read with section 143(3) could not have disturbed the assessment / reassessment order which has attained finality, unless the materials gathered in the course of the proceedings under section 153A ... material was unearthed during the search or during the 153A proceedings, the Assessing Officer while passing order under section 153A read with section 143(3) cannot disturb the assessment order.” 10. In this regard, it is gainful to refer to decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case