← 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. Darshan Construction, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT - 21, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 1793/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1793/Mum/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2014-15) बनधम/ M/S. Darshan Construction Pcit-21 Room No.364, 3Rd Floor, B-001, Siddhivinayak Vs. Darshan, Ground Floor, J.R. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Bricha Marg, Saatrasta, Road, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400011. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacfd1634M (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Pramod Kumar Parida & Kiran Vadher Revenue By: Shri Sanjeev Kashyap (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 09/02/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 26.02.2019 Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-21, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Pcit”] Relevant To The A.Y.2014-15 In Which The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-21 Has Invoked The Revisional Power U/S 263 Of The I.T. Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - 2. “1. Order U/S 263 Is Bad-In-Law & May Be Vacated: (I) The Id. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Pr.Cit) Erred In Assuming Jurisdiction U/S. 263 Without Appreciating That The Original Scrutiny Assessment Order Was Neither Erroneous Nor Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue As The Assessing Officer Had Passed The Same After Due Application Of Mind On The Basis Of Entire Materials Submitted Before Him; Therefore, The Impugned Order U/S. 263 Passed

For Appellant: Shri Pramod Kumar Parida &For Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Kashyap (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 234ASection 263Section 269S

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM

Shri Rameshkumar H. Jain, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT, CC-2(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 1721/MUM/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amar Jit Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Rameshkumar H. Jain, Dcit, Bit Chawl No.3, Central Circle-2(4), Shop No.202, Mumbai – 400 020 Seth Mothi Sha, Vs. Love Lane, Mazgaon, Byculla, Mumbai – 400 010 Pan: Aaipj9005G (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Ms.Ruchi Rathod, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Ganesh Bare, Sr. A.R. Cit Date Of Hearing : 05.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.04.2022 O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 17.03.2020 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-48, Mumbai Relevant To Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeal) Erred In Not Treating The Search Action As Illegal & Bad In Law. The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeal) Erred In Not Holding That The Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Is Bad, Illegal & Without Jurisdiction. The Said Proceeding Is Illegal, Without Jurisdiction & Bad In Law. 2.1. On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law Learned Cit (Appeals) Erred In Confirming Arbitrarily The Addition Of Rs.22,31,445/- Being Not Treating The Jewelry Found In Locker As The Stock In Trade Of The Appellant. Addition

For Appellant: Ms.Ruchi Rathod, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh Bare, Sr. A.R. CIT
Section 132Section 132(4)

place of business. On account of search and seizure action of the locker No.237, the assessee was assessed under section 153C read with section 143(3) of the Act for the A.Y. 2006-07 to 2012-13. The account balance sheet and ITR were accepted for those years. Closing stock ... assessee and also did not consider the capital gain, balance sheet, ITR and passed assessment order under section 153C read with section 143(3) of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) did not consider the same because the assessee was not having the place of business and the stock