“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 I & B Seeds Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 3415/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Nitish Ranjan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K, D.R

Section 43(1)

ITA No.3415/Bang/2018 M/s. I&B Seeds Private Limited, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI

Shri Prabhukumar Aiyappa Kullatira, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-4(3)(4), Bangalore

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

ITA 3048/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Smt. Pratibha, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Riyadarshini Basaganni, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 5(1)

ITA No.3048/Bang/2018 Shri Prabhukumar Aiyappa Kullatira, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI

Thyagarajan Rajkumar, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeals in (i) ITA No

ITA 905/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Sri.Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT -DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “A”, BANGALORE Before Shri George George K, JM & Ms.Padmavathy S, AM ITA

Thyagarajan Arunkumar, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeals in (i) ITA No

ITA 904/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Sri.Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT -DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “A”, BANGALORE Before Shri George George K, JM & Ms.Padmavathy S, AM ITA

Tesco Bangalore Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 719/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore15 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)

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

Tesco Bangalore Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 2492/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 10ASection 143(3)

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

Ruchi Soya Industries Limited, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- Mumbai, Mumbai

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

ITA 78/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jun 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.78/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2017-18) Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd बिधम/ Cit(A) Ruchi House, Royal Palms, Room No.605, 6Th Floor, Vs. Survey No. 169, Aarey Milk Pratishtha Bhavan, Colony, Near Mayur Nagar, Maharshi Karve Road, Goregaon (E), Mumbai- Mumbai-400020. 400065. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacr2892L (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri S. S. Nagar Revenue By: Shri P. R. Mane (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 01/06/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 14/06/2022 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)-49, Mumbai Dated 26.10.2021 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Pointed Out That There Was A Delay Of Few Days In Filing This Appeal & From A Perusal Of The Reasons Given, It Is Noted That The Impugned Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dated 26.10.2021Was Passed During The Period Of Covid-19 & Therefore As Per The Direction Of The Hon’Ble Supreme Court, The Limitation Period Of Filing Even Appeal Stands Extended. Therefore, We Are Inclined To Condone The Delay In Filing The Appeal & Admit This Appeal For Adjudication. 3. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of Ld. Cit(A) Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee Filed On 30.06.2020 On The Ground That There Was Delay Of 500 Days & Refusing To Condone

For Appellant: Shri S. S. NagarFor Respondent: Shri P. R. Mane (DR)

Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN

Rishabh Metals and Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. CPC, DCIT -Cir 1(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 327/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singhrishabh Metals & Vs. Dcit, Circle- 1(3)(1) Chemicals Pvt Ltd, Aayakar Bhavan, 4Th Floor, Eros Theater Mk Road, Bldg, J.T.Road, Mumbai-400020. Churchgate, Mumbai-400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacr2214E Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri Pankaj Kumar.Dr Date Of Hearing 23.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 27.06.2022 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), New Delhi Passed U/S 143(1) & 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar.DR

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 192Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40

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

Dosti Reality Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle, 1(1) (1), Mumbai

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

ITA 157/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Amit Shukla, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 157/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Dcit Circle-1(1)(1), Dosti Realty Ltd. बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. 1St Floor, Lawrence & Mayo Road, Mumbai-400 020 House, 276, Dr. D. N. Road, Vs. Fort, Mumbai-400 001 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaccs0746E (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Rahul Hakani, Ld. Ar प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Ajay Chandra, Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 07.06.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 14.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Impugned Order Dated 27.12.2021, Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi In Relation To Order Passed U/S 144C

For Appellant: Shri Rahul HakaniFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 14ASection 154

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, VP & SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JM आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A

Bombay Real Estate Development Co. P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-1(1)-3, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 513/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal a/wFor Respondent: Shri C.T. Mathews, Sr. A.R

Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(1)Section 14ASection 250Section 40

assessee on various occasions. The Assessing Officer, after discussion and examination of details filed by the assessee, vide order dated 26/11/2012 passed under section 143(3) of the Act assessed the income of the assessee under section 115JB of the Act at Rs. Bombay Real Estate Development ... support of its claim. The said notices were responded by the assessee. 8. The Assessing Officer vide order dated 23/03/2016 passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act computed the total income of the assessee under section

ACIT-8(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Siemens Ltd.(Successor M/S.Morgan Construction Co.(I)P.Ltd.), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 34/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Jeet KamdarFor Respondent: Shri B. K. Bagchi (Sr. AR)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN

El Cid Co .Op.Hsg. Soc. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO, WD 19(1)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 2266/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Mr. Pravin Chedda, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Samruddhi Hande, DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 234CSection 5(1)Section 80P(2)(d)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “SMC” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR

Swati Jignesh Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO 20(3) (1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1971/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(b)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘E‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Smt

M/S. Super Tiles & Marbles Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. NFAC, New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1950/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai14 Jun 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing Of Income Tax Returns U/S.139(1) Of The Act, Could Be Subject Matter Of Adjustment U/S.143(1)(A) Of The Act By The Central Processing Centre (Cpc).

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 44A

Salasar Derivatives Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 8(1) (4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1916/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: The Ld. Ao On 29/05/2018 Being The Scheduled Date Of Hearing. However, On 30/05/2018, The Assessee Had Duly Appeared & Submitted The Relevant Papers Physically Before The Ld. Ao. However, The Ld. Ao Proceeded To Levy Penalty U/S.271(1)(B) Of The Act For Non-Compliance On The Scheduled Date Of Hearing & Levied Penalty Of Rs.10,000/- Thereon Vide Order U/S.271(1)(B) Of The Act Dated 13/05/2019. This Penalty Was Upheld By The Ld. Cit(A).

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘E‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER M/s

Ketan Brothers Diamonds Exports, Mumbai vs. ACIT 23(2) /ACIT 23(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1627/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jun 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Vijaykumar S. BiyaniFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh Anand

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 2(24)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 44A

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. Ketan Brothers Diamondz Exports ITA No. 1627/Mum./2021 147 of the Act, or when no findings were

Rajendra Tubes & Fittings, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 19(3) (1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for both the assessment years, since no change in facts or law could be brought to our notice

ITA 1513/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishna Kedia (DR)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN

Rajendra Tubes & Fittings, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 19(3) (1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for both the assessment years, since no change in facts or law could be brought to our notice

ITA 1512/MUM/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishna Kedia (DR)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN

ACIT 13 (3)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Vega Chemicals Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 750/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleacit – 13(3)(2) Vs. M/S Vega Chemicals Room No. 229/2019, Pvt Ltd 2Nd Floor, Aayakar C-404, Gokuldham, Bhavan, Mk Road, Dindoshi Mumbai-400020. Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400063 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaecv1029M Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : Mr.Aditya Ramchandra.Ar Revenue By : Mr.S.N.Kabra.Dr Date Of Hearing 23.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22.06.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-21 Mumbai Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Mr.Aditya Ramchandra.ARFor Respondent: Mr.S.N.Kabra.DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 44A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI M BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL

Vikas Sharma, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-11(1)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 7252/MUM/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jun 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalesh. Vikas Sharma Vs. Ito, Ward – 11(1)(4) H. No. 46/8, Mohalla Mumbai-400021. Sodian Wala, Near Sadhu Chand Chowk, Ferozepur City – 152002 Punjab "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Afjps7607F Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri. Achal Sharma. Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 25.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 02.06.2022 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Achal Sharma. CIT DR

Section 127Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 194JSection 40

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL