← 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)

Virendrakumar Vijayvargia, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC1(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 383/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jun 2022AY 2015-16
Section 143(3)Section 147

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

Sampatkumar S. Dadhich, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 1(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 345/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jun 2022AY 2015-16
Section 143(3)Section 147

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

Sonam Gems Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 1(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 315/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jun 2022AY 2015-16
Section 143(3)Section 147

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

Gagan Chandaliya, Surat vs. ACIT CC -1(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 305/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jun 2022AY 2015-16
Section 143(3)Section 147

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

DCIT CC-8(1), Mumbai vs. Deepak Fertilisers & Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2183/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Viral ShahFor Respondent: Ms. Shailja Rai, CIT–DR
Section 143(3)Section 250

ground that the applicable VAT was not deposited by the said party. The Assessing Officer vide order dated 23/01/2015, passed under section 143(3) of the Act, inter–alia, did not agree with the submissions of the assessee and made the addition of Rs.2,71,688, on account of bogus

Vasant Investment Corporation Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 3(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1478/MUM/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jun 2022AY 2016-17
Section 143(3)Section 194A

appellant has challenged correctness of the order dated 28th January 2020 passed by the learned CIT(A) in the matter of assessment under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961 for the assessment year 2016-17. 2. Grievances raised by the appellant are as follows:- I. Assessing part

DCIT 1(1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Goldman Sachs India Finance P.Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 3695/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang B. Irani, DR
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 40

deduction would be to the extent of 30% amounting to ₹82,25,295/-. Therefore, the learned Assessing Officer passed an assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Act on Goldman Sachs (I) Finance Ltd. ITA No. 3674&3695/Mum/2019; AY 15-16 18.12.2017 making the disallowance

Goldman Sachs India Finance P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 1(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 3674/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang B. Irani, DR
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 40

deduction would be to the extent of 30% amounting to ₹82,25,295/-. Therefore, the learned Assessing Officer passed an assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Act on Goldman Sachs (I) Finance Ltd. ITA No. 3674&3695/Mum/2019; AY 15-16 18.12.2017 making the disallowance

DCIT(It)-3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Venu Raman Kumar, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3559/MUM/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jun 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit (It) – 3(3)(2) Vs. Shri Venu Raman 16Th Floor, Room No. Kumar, 1634, Air India Bldg, Flat No. 2, Hermes Nariman Point, House-Iii, Mumbai – 400020. Worli Sea Face, Mumbai – 400025. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abapk9122E Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri.Achal Sharma. Cit. Dr Respondent By : Shri.Vijay Mehta.Ar Date Of Hearing 01.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 13.06.2022 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) – 57, Mumbai Passed U/S 271(1)(C) & 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri.Achal Sharma. CIT. DRFor Respondent: Shri.Vijay Mehta.AR
Section 114Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 5(2)

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

Anil Nanatty Chandran, Mumbai vs. ITO 2(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6905/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jun 2022AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Ms. Dinkle HariyaFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain
Section 143(3)Section 24(1)(vi)Section 250Section 68

Assessment Year 2010-11, whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had partly allowed the appeals filed by the Appellant against the Assessment Order under Section 143(3) of the Act. Assessment Year: 2010-11 2. Brief facts of the case are that the Appellant, a resident individual, was employed ... agricultural income. The case of the Appellant was selected for scrutiny and the Assessing Officer completed assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act after making (i) disallowance of interest of INR 1,50,000/- claimed by the Appellant under Section 24(1)(vi) of the Act, (ii) the addition/disallowances

M/S Delhi International Airport Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax(OSD) Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 127/BANG/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Sri.Sunil Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT -DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 154Section 234CSection 244ASection 250

Rs.6,73,13,880/- was claimed in the return of income. (refer factual Paper Book Page 4-22) . 4. The assessment under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was completed vide order dated 28.03.2018 assessing therein total income at RS.Nil (after set off of brought forward losses

M/S. Biocon Limited, Bengaluru vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Ltu, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed on the legal issue raised in ground no

ITA 1858/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2010-11 The Joint M/S. Biocon Ltd., Commissioner Of 20Th Km, Hosur Road, Income-Tax, Electronic City, Large Tax Payers Bangalore – 560 100. Unit [Ltu], Pan: Aaacb7461R Vs. Bangalore. Appellant Respondent : Shri Padam Chand Khincha, Assessee By Ca Revenue By : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 20-04-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 09-06-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 28.03.2018 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-3, Bangalore For A.Y. 2010-11 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Mentioned Herein Below Are Independent & Without Prejudice To The Other Grounds Preferred By The Appellant. 1. That On Facts & Circumstances Of The ' Case & In Law, The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax Appeals ["Cit(A)"] Dated March 28, 2018 Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act") For Ay 2010-11 To The Extent Prejudicial To The Appellant, Is Bad In Law & Facts & Liable To Be Quashed. 2. Scope Of Re-Assessment Proceedings

For Respondent: Shri Padam Chand Khincha
Section 147Section 250Section 35

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL

M/S. Everest Kanto Cylinder Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy.CIT (Ltu)-2, Mumbai

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

ITA 533/MUM/2022[2014--15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jun 2022

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singheverest Kanto Cylinder Vs. Dcit (Ltu) – 2 Ltd., 29Th Floor, Centre-1, 204, Raheja Centre World Trade Centre-1 Free Press Journal Cuffe Parade, Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400005. Mumbai – 400021. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaace0836F Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri.Sekhar Gupta.Ar Respondent By : Shri.Pankaj Kumar.Dr Date Of Hearing 21.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22.06.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), New Delhi Passed U/S 143(1) R.W.S 144C & 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri.Sekhar Gupta.ARFor Respondent: Shri.Pankaj Kumar.DR
Section 10(34)Section 115JSection 115jSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 92C

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

Macrotech Developers Ltd. (Successor Oto Brightgold Construction P. Ltd. Since Merged Wth Lodha Impession Real Estate P. Ltd.) (Earlier Known As Lodha Ltd.), Mumbai vs. Dy CIT Central Range-7(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 526/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jun 2022AY 2012-13
Section 143(3)Section 40

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘SMC‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Mp Border Checkpost Development Co Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO - 14(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 484/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyalmp Border Checkpost Vs. Ito – 14(2)(2) Development Company 453, 4Th Floor, Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, The Il & Fs Financial Mumbai – 400020. Centre, Plot C-22, G- Block, Bkc, Bandra (E) Mumbai – 400051. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aagcm8030K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri. Pramod Nikalje.Dr Date Of Hearing 14.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 15.06.2022 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 (Appeal) – 22, Mumbai Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Pramod Nikalje.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234DSection 37

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT

Sushil Manohar Agarkar, Mumbai vs. ITO 23(1) (3), Mumbai

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

ITA 1741/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Him. We Find That The Assessee Had Challenged This Action Vide Ground No.1 Before Us. We Find That Assessee Had Also Filed An Affidavit Explaining The Reasons For The Delay Of 24 Days. In These Circumstances, We Deem It Fit & Appropriate To Remand This Appeal To The File Of Ld Cit(A) With A Direction To Condone The Delay & Adjudicate The Appeal Denovo, In Accordance With Law. Accordingly, The Ground No.1 Raised By The Assessee Are Allowed For Statistical Purposes.

Section 143(3)

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

Gian Chand Arora, Navi Mumbai vs. Pr CIT (Central)-1, Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1280/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Pcit Gian Chand Arora Room No.1001, 10Th Floor, 101, 48 Nri Complex, Seawoods Estates Road, Pratishtha Bhavan, Sector 58, Seawoods, Old Cgo Annexe, Vs. Navi Mumbai, Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai-400 706 Mumbai-400 020 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Abgpa 9809 G Assessee By : Shri Ashok Mehta, Ar Revenue By : Shri Shekhar L. Gajbhiye, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 09.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.06.2022

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shekhar L. Gajbhiye, CIT
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 54

Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated 24th March, 2021, for A.Y. 2011-12 holding that assessment order passed under Section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act dated 16th November, 2018, is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue and hence, set aside. The assessee ... income. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was reopened by issuing notice under Section 147 of the Act. The return was assessed under Section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act on 16th November, 2018, accepting the return of income. Subsequently, on verification of records, the learned PCIT

Eat India Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 4(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 915/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm The Cit (A) -9 Eat India Private Limited 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, 2, Silk House, Silk Bazar, M.K. Road, 630, Jss Road, Vs. Mumbai-400 002 Mumbai-400 020 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaace1868M Assessee By : Shri Jigar Mehta, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.G. Mehta, Dr Date Of Hearing: 31.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.06.2022

For Appellant: Shri Jigar Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.G. Mehta, DR
Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 36(2)

short learned CIT (A)] in appeal No. CIT (A)-9/158/2017-18 dated 19th July, 2019 against the order of assessment passed under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) dated 18th December 2017, by the learned Income Tax Officer, Ward

A. B. Nagi Reddy, Mumbai vs. ACIT -Circle-2, Thane

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1486/MUM/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jun 2022AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala
Section 143(3)Section 250

dismissed the appeal filed by the Assessee against the ITA. No. 1486/Mum/2020 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Assessment Order, dated 25.03.2013, passed under section 143(3) of the Act. 2. The Ld. Authorised Representative for the Appellant appearing before us, at the outset, submitted that there was a delay in filing

Mahavir Roads & Infrastructure, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle-3(4), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed in limini

ITA 646/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jun 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Amit Shukla, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 646 To 651/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09 To 2013-14) Dcit Cen. Cir-3(4), Mahavir Roads & R. No. 1915, 19Th Floor, Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Air India Building, Destination Builidng, 6Th Floor, Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai- Above Mcdonal’S Restaurant, 400 021 Near Ghatkopar Chembur Flyover, Mumbai-400 071 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaecm8166G (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Rohan Deshpande, Ld. Ar प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Ajay Chandra, Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 08.06.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 08.06.2022 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 22.11.2018, Passed By Ld. Cit (Appeals)-51, Mumbai For The Quantum Appeal Of 2

For Appellant: Shri Rohan DeshpandeFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, Ld
Section 13Section 14Section 14(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 31Section 33Section 7

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