← 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)

Prabhat Prpoperties Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir-8(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1508/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1508/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2012-13) Prabhat Properties Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Acit-Central Circle-8(4) Office No.A702, 7Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Everest Nivara Infotech Maharshi Karve Road, Park, Plot No. D/3 Ttc Mumbai-400020. Industrial Area Midc, Turbhe, Navi Mumbai- 400705. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaecp5792P (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri J. P. Bairagra (Adv.) Revenue By: Shri R. A. Dhyani (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 12/05/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 27/05/2022 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)-50, Mumbai Dated 06.08.2021 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Disallowance Made By The Ao U/S 154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter (‘The Act’)] (Rectification Of Mistake Apparent On The Face Of Record).

For Appellant: Shri J. P. Bairagra (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri R. A. Dhyani (Sr. AR)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, AM

DCIT-CC 3(2), Mumbai vs. Chintamani Textiles Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 1879/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 1878 & 1879/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years:2011-12 & 2012-13) Dcit-Cc 3(2) बिधम/ Chintamani Textiles Pvt. Ltd. Room No.1913, Air India Mezanine Office No.2, Sujata Vs. Building, Nariman Point, Chambers, Narshi Natha Mumbai-400021. Street, Mumbai-400064. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccc744Od (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri H. N. Singh (Dr) Assessee By: None सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 10/05/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 27/05/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Appeals Are Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-51, Mumbai Dated 29.01.2019 For A.Y. 2011-12 & For A.Y.2012-13. 2. None Appeared For The Assessee Despite Notices. The Ld. Cit Dr Has Brought To Our Notice Reports Submitted By Ao On The Lis, Which According To Us Will Be Sufficient To Dispose Of Both The Appeals Of Revenue. 3. For A.Y.2011-12, The Revenue Is Aggrieved By The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Deleting The Protective Addition Of Rs.3,35,00,000/- On The Issue Of Unaccounted Investment & Rs.9,30,500/- On The Issue Of Unaccounted Commission U/S 69C Of The Act & For A.Y.2012-13, The Revenue Is Aggrieved By The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Deleting The Protective Addition Of Rs.6,88,00,000/- On The Issue Of Unaccounted

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri H. N. Singh (DR)
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, AM

DCIT-CC 3(2), Mumbai vs. Chintamani Textiles Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 1878/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 1878 & 1879/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years:2011-12 & 2012-13) Dcit-Cc 3(2) बिधम/ Chintamani Textiles Pvt. Ltd. Room No.1913, Air India Mezanine Office No.2, Sujata Vs. Building, Nariman Point, Chambers, Narshi Natha Mumbai-400021. Street, Mumbai-400064. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccc744Od (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri H. N. Singh (Dr) Assessee By: None सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 10/05/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 27/05/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Appeals Are Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-51, Mumbai Dated 29.01.2019 For A.Y. 2011-12 & For A.Y.2012-13. 2. None Appeared For The Assessee Despite Notices. The Ld. Cit Dr Has Brought To Our Notice Reports Submitted By Ao On The Lis, Which According To Us Will Be Sufficient To Dispose Of Both The Appeals Of Revenue. 3. For A.Y.2011-12, The Revenue Is Aggrieved By The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Deleting The Protective Addition Of Rs.3,35,00,000/- On The Issue Of Unaccounted Investment & Rs.9,30,500/- On The Issue Of Unaccounted Commission U/S 69C Of The Act & For A.Y.2012-13, The Revenue Is Aggrieved By The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Deleting The Protective Addition Of Rs.6,88,00,000/- On The Issue Of Unaccounted

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri H. N. Singh (DR)
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, AM