← 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)

DCIT-1(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Deutsche India Pvt. Ltd.(Earlier Known As 'Dboi Global Services Pvt. Ltd.), Mumbai

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

ITA 2500/MUM/2021[2008-09]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai11 Jul 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2500/Mum/2021 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Dcit –1(3)(1), M/S Deutsche India Pvt. R. No. 535, 5Th Floor, Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. (Earlier Knows As ‘Dboi Road, Global Services Pvt. Ltd.) बिधम/ Mumbai-400 020 Block B-4, Level-6, Nirlon Vs. Knowledge Park, Goregoan (East) Mumbai-400 063, Vaibhav, Cadell Road, Mahim, Mumbai-400 016 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan No. Aaccd2953L (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri T. Shankar, Ld. Dr प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Manan, Ld. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 11.07.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 11.07.2022 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 30.08.2021, Passed By National Faceless

For Appellant: Shri T. Shankar, LdFor Respondent: Shri Manan, Ld. AR
Section 143(3)Section 263

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JM & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM आयकरअपीलसं

M/S. Oriental Trading Co., Mumbai vs. CIT (A) NFAC, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2329/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jul 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2329 & 2330/Mum/2021 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2018-19 & 2019-20) Cit(A) - Nfac M/S Oriental Trading Co. Mumbai. 1St Floor, Elite House, Punjab बिधम/ Foundry, Near Classic Studio, Vs. Mira Road East, Mumbai-400 107 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaafo7024L (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Sanjay Parikh, Ld. Ar प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Nihar Ranjan Samal, Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 11.07.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 11.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Impugned Order Of Even Date 26.10.2021, Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, In Relation To Adjustment Made U/S 143(1) For The Ay 2018-19 & 2019-20. 2

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Parikh, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Nihar Ranjan Samal
Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 80

humble understanding, can be relevant, for example, when a call is required to be taken on merits in respect of an assessment under section 143(3) or under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, or when no findings were to be given on the scope of permissible adjustments

DCIT Tax - (E) 2(1), Mumbai vs. M/S the J.K.Trust Bombay, Mumbai

ITA 2257/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 2257/मुं/2021("न.व. 2013-14) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption)-2(1), Mumbai, Room No.608, 6Th Floor, Mtnl Building, Cumballa Hill, Peddar Road, Mumbai – 400 026. ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The J.K.Trust Bombay, Ground Floor, New Hind House, Narottam Morarjee Marg, Bellard Estate, Mumbai 400 001 Pan: Aaatt-0611-L ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Prakash R. Mane ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Madhur Agarwal सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 11/07/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 11/07/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [ In Short ‘The Cit(A)’ ] Dated 21/06/2021, For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. This Appeal Is Time Barred By 104 Days. The Assessing Officer Has Filed An Application Explaining Reasons For Delay In Filing Of The Appeal. The Delay In Filing Of The Appeal Is Attributed To Covid-19 Pandemic. Taking In To 2 Consideration The Hardship Caused To The Litigants In The Extra Ordinary Circumstances The Hon'Ble Supreme Court Of India Taking Suo-Motu Cognizance For Extension Of Limitation Reported As 132 Taxamann.Com 123 Extended The Period Of Limitation Under General Laws Of Limitation & Special Laws. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Within The Extended Period Of Limitations, Hence, No Delay In Filing Of Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Prakash R. ManeFor Respondent: Shri Madhur Agarwal
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

nature and denied the benefit of section 11 r.w.s. 13D of the Act. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 24/03/2018 passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, the assessee filed appeal before CIT(A). The CIT(A) after examining the facts of the case held that

Dy CIT, Mumbai vs. Innergize Solution P. Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 1818/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1818/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit Circle –6(3)(1), M/S Innergize R. No. 506, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Solution Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Bhavan, M. K. Road, 33, Vaibhav, Cadell Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Road, Mahim, Mumbai-400 016 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan No. Aabci5086L (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Nihar Samal, Ld. Dr प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri P. P. Bhandari, Ld. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 07.07.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 07.07.2022 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 28.08.2020, Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-12, Mumbai For The Quantum Of Assessment Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S.

For Appellant: Shri Nihar Samal, LdFor Respondent: Shri P. P. Bhandari, Ld
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 35(1)(ii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JM & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM आयकरअपीलसं

ACIT-26, Mumbai vs. Sangeeta Enterprises, Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed being devoid of any merit

ITA 1739/MUM/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 1739/मुं/2020 ("न.व. 2010-11) Acit -26(3), R.No.332, 3Rd Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 051 ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Sangeeta Enterprises, 101, Sngeeta Enclave, Sarvoday Nagar, Mulund(W), Mumbai 400 080 Pan:Aanfs-0061-J ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : None ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Pitta Samuel सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 07/07/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 07/07/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-40, Mumbai ( In Short ‘The Cit(A) ’) Dated 18/02/2020 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Revenue In Appeal Has Raised As Many As Six Grounds, Assailing The Findings Of Cit(A) Deleting The Addition Of Rs.2,62,11,000/- Made On Account Of Undisclosed Sale Of Flats.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Pitta Samuel
Section 143(3)

income. The Assessing Officer made addition of the aforesaid amount as undisclosed business income. Against the assessment order dated 28/12/2015 passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [ in short ‘ the Act Act’], the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A) inter- alia assailing