← 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)

Think and Learn Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-3, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 418/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Think & Learn Private Limited, Vs. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax - 3, 4/1, 6Th Floor, Tower D, Ibc Bengaluru. Knowledge Park, Bannerghatta Main Road, Opposite Fire Station, Bengaluru – 560 029. Pan : Aaect 0931 A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. T. Suryanarayana, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 24.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.08.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 31.03.2022 Of The Principal Cit – 3 (Pcit), Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1962 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’) In Relation To Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Business Of Providing Online Learning Platform In The Name Of “Byju” For Kindergarten To 12Th Standard Students & Other Related Services. The Assessee Filed Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2017-18 Declaring Total Income Of Page 2 Of 10

For Appellant: Shri. T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 245RSection 245R(2)(i)Section 263Section 40Section 56(2)(vii)

under section 263 of the Act, was of the view that the action of the AO in passing the order dated 24.12.2019 under section 143(3) of the Act for Assessment Year 2017-18 was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue because as per the provisions ... following observations: “7. Whereas taking into consideration the material available on record, I hold that the assessment order passed by the AO under section 143(3) of the Act dated 27.09.2019 is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue within the meaning of section

Brocade Communications Systems Private Limited, Bengluru vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Bengaluru

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

ITA 656/BANG/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Brocade Communications Systems Pvt. Ltd., Floor 3, B & C Wing & The Principal Floor 8, D Wing, S1 Commissioner Of Wipro Electronic City Income Tax – 1, Sez, Doddathogur Bengaluru. Vs. Village, Bengaluru – 560 100. Pan: Aaccb4490N Appellant Respondent : Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, Assessee By Advocate : Smt. Priyadarshini Revenue By Baseganni, Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 28-07-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-08-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against Order Dated 18/03/2020 Passed By The Ld.Pr.Cit For A.Y. 2013-14 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax ('Pr.Cit') Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ('The Act'), Is Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed. 2. The Learned Pr.Cit Erred In Law & Facts In Concluding That The Order Of The Assessing Officer ('Ao') Is "Erroneous

For Respondent: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 263Section 28Section 92C

facts in initiating the proceedings under Section 263 of the Act with respect to the order dated 25 September 2017 passed under Section 143(3) r.w.s 1440(13) of the Act, in as much as the order passed by the Assessing Officer was neither erroneous, nor prejudicial to the interests

ACIT Cir 20(1), Mumbai vs. Shailesh Navinchandra Shah, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed in limini

ITA 2383/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2383/Mum/2021 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Acit Cir-20(1), Shailesh R. No. 615, 6Th Floor, Navinchandra Shah, बिधम/ Piramal Chambers, Parel, 6-321, Ravikiran, 1St Mumbai-400 012 Floor, Deodhar Road, Vs. Matunga Cr Mumbai-400019 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan No. Aayps6030Q (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms. Neeta Jeph, Ld. Dr प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Viraj Mehta,Ld. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 29.08.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 29.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Impugned Order Dated 29.10.2021, Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi For The Quantum Of Assessment Passed U/S 143(3) For Ay 2011-12. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds:-

For Appellant: Ms. Neeta Jeph, Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri Viraj Mehta,Ld. AR
Section 143(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JM आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2383/Mum/2021 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment