“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)

Thirumala Green Power Enterprises Private Ltd, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for both the

ITA 193/CHNY/2021[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Sept 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Mr. Guru Bashyam, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 263

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी महावीर "संह

Rajaram Gokula Kannan, Salem vs. The ACIT, Circle-1, Salem-7

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee in I

ITA 131/CHNY/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. M. Rajan, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 50C

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

Smt. Srinivasan Arthi, Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward - 15 (1), Chennai

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

ITA 683/CHNY/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.683/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 Smt. Srinivasan Arthi, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 9 & 10, Madha Koil First Cross Street, Non Corporate Ward 15(1), Neelankarai, Chennai 600 041. Chennai. [Pan:Bljpa4271N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Mrs. T V Muthu Abirami, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G. Johnson, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 14.09.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14.09.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao:

For Appellant: Mrs. T V Muthu Abirami, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी वी. दुगा" राव, "ाियक

Kokila Balaraman, Chennai vs. ACIT Non Corporate Circle 13(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 718/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. N. Sanjay Gandhi, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी महावीर "सह, उपा"य

B.Gokula Krishnan, Chennai vs. ACIT Non Corporate Circle 13(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 717/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. N. Sanjay Gandhi, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)

Kundha Agri Farms, Chennai vs. ITO Ncw 1(4), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1556/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Mr. N.Sanjay Gandhi, Addl.CITFor Respondent: 14.09.2022

Section 143(3)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी महावीर "संह

Shri Ramanlal Jain, Chennai vs. DCIT, Ncc - 6 (2), Chennai

The appeal stand partly allowed for statistical

ITA 1331/CHNY/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Sept 2022AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjunraj (CA) for S. SridharFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal (JCIT) – Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 40Section 5

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C/SMC-II” BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय "ी मनोज कुमार अ#वाल ,लेखा सद* के सम+। HON’BLE

Aban Infrastructure Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 82/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal (JCIT) – Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 28Section 35(3)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ’डी’ "ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय ,ी वी. दुगा2

ACIT Non Corporate Circle 7(1), Chennai vs. Chinnasamy Mani, Chennai

ITA 3078/CHNY/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson (Addl. CIT) – Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 68

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ’ए’ "ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय +ी वी. दुगा1राव

Surplus Finvest P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT-11, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1971/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Joshi, Advocate, a/wFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Kardam, CIT - DR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 253(3)Section 263

been passed by the Assessing Officer pursuant to impugned order passed under section 263 of the Act, whereby the assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Act was set aside with the direction to pass a fresh speaking order. Learned counsel further submitted that the time period provided ... loss eligible for being carried forward for future years for set off purposes. The Assessing Officer vide order dated 30/11/2017, passed under section 143(3) of the Act accepted the total income of the assessee as per return. 8. Subsequently, notice dated 28/01/2020, was issued under section

Shri Ganadhiraj Co-Op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd., Mumbai vs. CIT (A) -40, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5351/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Devendra JainFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar Das

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 50CSection 80P

income under the head capital gains during the year under consideration. The Assessing Officer („AO’) vide order dated 11/02/2014 passed under section 143(3) r/w section 147 of the Act did not agree with the submissions of the assessee and held that there was no contract during the financial year

Rialto Exim, Mumbai vs. ITO 14(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 2316/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S Rialto Exim 907, Jewel World, Kalbadevi Road, Mumbai-400002 Pan: Aakfr3441G ...... Appellant Vs. Ito, Ward-14(3)(2), Earnest House, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400 021. ..... Respondent Ito, Ward-14(3)(2), Earnest House, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400 021. ..... Appellant Vs. M/S Rialto Exim 907, Jewel World, Kalbadevi Road, Mumbai-400002 Pan: Aakfr3441G ...... Respondent Appellant/Assessee By : Sh. Jayant Bhatt Respondent/Respondent By : Sh. Dharmvir Yadav/Sh. R.A. Dhyani Date Of Hearing : 20/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14/09/2022

For Appellant: Sh. Jayant BhattFor Respondent: Sh. Dharmvir Yadav/Sh. R.A. Dhyani

Section 10Section 10ASection 133ASection 143(2)Section 145

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL

ITO 2(3)(3), Mumbai vs. Zensar Technologies Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 955/MUM/2013[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Sept 2022AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannuand Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Mihir NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar Das

Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 80HSection 92C

income on 19/08/2003 declaring book profit of Rs. 17,11,423, under section 115JB of the Act. The assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act on 29/12/2004, computing normal income at Rs. NIL and book profit under section 115JB ... directed the Assessing Officer to give effect to its directions. As a result, the Assessing Officer passed the order dated 26/12/2007, under section 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act complying with the directions of the learned CIT issued under section 263 of the Act. In appeal, the learned

G.S. Entertainment, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 24 & 26, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 4499/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Stany SaldhanaFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar Das, Sr. AR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 254(1)Section 41Section 41(1)

loss after release of the film, payments could not be made to the creditors. The Assessing Officer vide order dated 23/12/2011 passed under section 143(3) of the Act, in absence of any documentary evidence, treated the liability as non-existent and accordingly, added the amount of sundry creditors ... event could not be materialised. These loans/advances will be utilised when show/event will be done. The Assessing Officer vide order passed under section 143(3) of the Act did not agree with the submissions of the assessee and added the entire amount

ITO 19(3)(1), Mumbai vs. G.S. Entertainment, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 4362/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Stany SaldhanaFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar Das, Sr. AR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 254(1)Section 41Section 41(1)

Zensar Technologies Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 2(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 276/MUM/2013[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Sept 2022AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannuand Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Mihir NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar Das

Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 80HSection 92C

Anuradha Chivukula Challa, Bangalore vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Range-1, Bangalore

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

ITA 585/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am It(It)A No.585/Bang/2022 : Asst.Year 2017-2018 Smt.Anuradha Chivukula Challa The Additional Commissioner No.12, Seshu, 12Th Cross Of Income-Tax, International V. Indiranagar 1St Stage Taxation, Range – 1 Bangalore – 560 038. Bangalore. Pan : Bgapc8765M. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Siddesh Nagaraj Gaddi, Ca Respondent By : Sri.K.Sankar Ganesh, Jcit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 14.09.2022 Date Of Hearing : 13.09.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Cit(A)’S Order Dated 08.06.2022. The Order Of The Cit(A) Arises Out Of The Order Of A.O. Imposing Penalty U/S 271D Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2017- 2018. 2. The Solitary Issue Raised Is Whether The Cit(A) Is Justified In Confirming The Penalty Imposed U/S 271D Of The I.T.Act.

For Appellant: Sri.Siddesh Nagaraj Gaddi, CAFor Respondent: Sri.K.Sankar Ganesh, JCIT-DR

Section 269SSection 271DSection 273B

provisions of section 269SS was not a genuine transaction. On the contrary, the return filed by the assessee was accepted after scrutiny under section 143(3) of the Act. Further, there is no finding of the appellate authority that the transaction in breach of the aforesaid provisions made

Walvoil Fluid Power India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 339/BANG/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(Tp)A No.339/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Walvoil Fluid Power India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner No.19, 2Nd Cross, 2Nd Main, Of Income Tax, Kiadb Attibele Industrial Area, Circle 7(1)(2), Attibele, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 562 107. Pan: Aaacw 5954E Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri R.E. Balasubramaniyan, Ca Respondent By : Dr. Shankar Prasad, K., Addl. Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.09.2022 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S.This Appeal Is Against The Final Order Of The Ao Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [The Act] Dated 28.01.2022 For The Assessment Year 2011-12 On The Following Grounds:- “1. That The Order Of The Ld. Ao Insofar As It Is Prejudicial To The Interests Of The Appellant Is Opposed To Law & Facts Of The Case. 2. That In The Calculation Of Alp The Ld. Ao Erred In Including Entities Such As M/S Dhp India Ltd & The Sundram Bleistahl

For Appellant: Shri R.E. Balasubramaniyan, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Shankar Prasad, K., Addl. CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND Ms. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT

Reserve Bank of India Staff Quarters, Chennai vs. ITO(Exemptions), Ward-4, Chennai

The appeals stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 645/CHNY/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Miss. Amirtha (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mr. D. Hema Bhupal (JCIT) - Ld. DR

Section 10Section 12ASection 143(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B/SMC” BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल ,लेखा सद) के सम*। HON’BLE

Reserve Bank of India Staff Quarters, Chennai vs. ITO(Exemptions), Ward-4, Chennai

The appeals stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 644/CHNY/2022[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Sept 2022AY 2015-2016

For Appellant: Miss. Amirtha (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mr. D. Hema Bhupal (JCIT) - Ld. DR

Section 10Section 12ASection 143(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B/SMC” BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल ,लेखा सद) के सम*। HON’BLE