← 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 Dtps Employees Co-Op Credit Limited Dahanu, Palghar vs. Pr Commissioner of Income Ta -1, Thane

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1519/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Us:-

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘D‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M/s

Rajesh Dharamvir Gulati, Navi Mumbai-400703 vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -27, Navi Mumbai-400703

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1174/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Aug 2022AY 2017-18
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 23(5)Section 263

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘D‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Shri

Creative Ashtech Powr Projects P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asst. CIT-14(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 946/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Baskaran B.R & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalecreative Ashtech Power Vs. Acit – 14(1)(2) Projects Pvt Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 7Th Floor, Raheja Point I, M.K.Road, Opp Vakola Market, Mumbai – 400020. Nehru Road,Santacruz (E) Mumbai- 400055. Pan/Gir No. : Aadcd1054F Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr. Amit Khatiwala.Ar Respondent By : Mr. Ganesh Bare. Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 22.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 24.08.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Cit(A)- National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Passed U/S 154 & 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Mr. Amit Khatiwala.ARFor Respondent: Mr. Ganesh Bare. CIT DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 154

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI BASKARAN B.R, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL

Zodiac Maritime Agencies India P. Ld., Mumbai vs. National E-Assesment Centre (Neac), Delhi

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

ITA 1225/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Aug 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Anil SatheFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh Anand
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 234Section 234BSection 92C

SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M. The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned final assessment order dated 27/04/2021, passed under section 143(3) r/w section 144C(13) r/w section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”), for the assessment year 2016–17. 2. In this

Mital Vardhibhai Doshi, Mumbai vs. ACIT 19(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 678/MUM/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singhmital Vardhibhai Doshi Vs. Acit – 19(2) C/O. Mital Brass, 216, Room No. 207, Shriji Chambers, Matru Mandir, Nana Operahouse,Charaniroad Chowk,Grantroad(W), Mumbai-400004 Mumbai-400007 Pan/Gir No. : Adupd8176D Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Himanshi Gandhi.Ar Respondent By : Smt.Mahita Nair.Dr Date Of Hearing 04.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 08.08.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 147 & 250. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Revised Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Himanshi Gandhi.ARFor Respondent: Smt.Mahita Nair.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT

Addl.C.I.T. RG. 7(1), Mumbai vs. Peninsula Land Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 1479/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Aug 2022AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri Achal SharmaFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Mehta
Section 143(3)

Assessment Order, dated ITA. No. 4600 & 4456/Mum/2009: Assessment Year: 2006-07 ITA No. 1479 & 1636 /Mum/2012: Assessment Year: 2007-08 29.12.2008, passed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟]. 3. The relevant facts in brief are that Assessee, a company engaged ... case of the Assessee was selected for scrutiny. 4. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment on the Assessee vide, order dated 29.12.2008, under Section 143(3) of the Act at total income of INR 51,24,75,320/- after making, inter alia, following addition/disallowances: (a) The Assessing Officer rejected

DCIT Cir 7(1), Mumbai vs. Peninsula Land Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 4600/MUM/2009[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Aug 2022AY 2006-07
For Appellant: Shri Achal SharmaFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Mehta
Section 143(3)

Assessment Order, dated ITA. No. 4600 & 4456/Mum/2009: Assessment Year: 2006-07 ITA No. 1479 & 1636 /Mum/2012: Assessment Year: 2007-08 29.12.2008, passed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟]. 3. The relevant facts in brief are that Assessee, a company engaged ... case of the Assessee was selected for scrutiny. 4. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment on the Assessee vide, order dated 29.12.2008, under Section 143(3) of the Act at total income of INR 51,24,75,320/- after making, inter alia, following addition/disallowances: (a) The Assessing Officer rejected

Asha Devi, Bangalore vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore-2, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 371/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Deva Rathna Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 143(3)Section 263

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Ms. PADMAVATHY S

M/S. Ozone Properties Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, TDS, Circle-2(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 244/BANG/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri J.V. Kodhandapani, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 193Section 194ASection 201Section 201(1)Section 250Section 40

paid". In the case under consideration, as discussed supra, the appellant has accepted the order of the AO as passed under Section 143(3) of the Act and as such the ratio of the above decision of ITAT applies to its case. In the case of Solar Automobiles India

M/S Gokula Education Foundation, Bangalore vs. Additional Director of Income Tax Range-17, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 945/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Padmavathy Sassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dev Ratan Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PADMAVATHY S

Hp India Sales Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Ltu, Bangalore

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

ITA 524/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am It(Tp)A No.524/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 M/S.Hp India Sales Private The Joint Commissioner Of Limited (Formerly Known As Income-Tax, Ltu V. Bangalore. Hewlett-Packard India Sales Private Limited), 24 Salarpuria Area, Hosur Main Road, Adugodi Bangalore – 560 030. Pan : Aaacc9862F. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Ajay Vohra, Senior Counsel / Sri. Neeraj Jain, Sri.Lalit Attal & Sri.Karon Dhanuka, Advoicates Respondent By : Sri.Harishchandra Naik, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 18.08.2022 Date Of Hearing : 27.07.2022 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 03.01.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2012-2013. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In Import Of Computer Peripherals From Its Associated Enterprises (Aes) For Sale In India & Also Rendered Certain Support Services. The Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2012-2013 Was Filed On 29.02.2012, Admitting Total Income Of Rs.544,61,99,276. The Return Was Revised On 25.03.2014

For Appellant: Sri.Ajay Vohra, Senior Counsel / Sri. Neeraj JainFor Respondent: Sri.Harishchandra Naik, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92BSection 92C

dated January 03,2017, passed 3 IT(TP)A No.524/Bang/2017. M/s.HP India Sales Private Limited. by the learned Assessing Officer ("learned AO") under section 143(3) read with section 144C (13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act") in the case of HP India Sales Private Limited (formerly known

Dell India Private Ltd., Bangalore vs. JCIT, Bangalore

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

ITA 562/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Karanth, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 92C

service tax return as against net income in the financials. Thus, the issue of deferred revenue was never relevant in the proceedings under section 143(3) for AY 2009-10 and was not subject matter of appeal before this Hon’ble Tribunal in that year. Therefore DRP’s findings

Tater Realty, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC- 8(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1380/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Aug 2022AY 2018-19
Section 129Section 142(1)Section 144Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(b)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘E‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA

Tater Realty, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC- 8(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1379/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Aug 2022AY 2017-18
Section 129Section 142(1)Section 144Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(b)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘E‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA

Tater Realty, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC- 8(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1378/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Aug 2022AY 2016-17
Section 129Section 142(1)Section 144Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(b)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘E‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA

Tater Realty, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC- 8(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1377/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Aug 2022AY 2015-16
Section 129Section 142(1)Section 144Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(b)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘E‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA

Tater Realty, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 8(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1376/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Aug 2022AY 2014-15
Section 129Section 142(1)Section 144Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(b)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘E‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA

Tater Realty, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC- 8 (2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1375/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Aug 2022AY 2013-14
Section 129Section 142(1)Section 144Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(b)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘E‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA

Reliance Retail Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 8(1) (1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1245/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Aug 2022AY 2013-14
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘D‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M/s

Jt. Comm of Income Tax (OSD), CC - 7(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Rajamundry Expressway Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1587/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Us :-

Section 143(3)Section 32(1)(ii)Section 37(1)Section 40A(2)Section 801ASection 80I

hereunder for the sake of convenience :- 3. In grounds no.1 to 5, the assessee has challenged the validity of the assessment framed under section 143(3) r/w section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act"). Whereas, in grounds no.6, 7, 8 and 9, the assessee ... after claiming deduction of ₹ 11,64,44,163, under section 80IA. The assessment in case of the assessee was completed under section 143(3), vide order dated 30th November 2010 disallowing assessee‟s claim of deduction under section 80IA of the Act on the reasoning that such deduction is allowable