← 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)

Merck Performance Materials Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 15(2)(2), Mumbai

ITA 1210/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Rahul Chaudharyआयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1210/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Merck Performance Materials बिधम/ The Assistant Pvt. Ltd., (Formerly Known As Commissioner Of Income Vs. Chemtreat Composites India Tax – 15(2)(2), Mumbai, Pvt. Ltd.) Aayakar Bhavan, Godrej One, Pirojsha Nagar, M.K. Road, Eastern Express Highway, Mumbai - 400020 Vikhroli (East), Mumbai- 400079 Pan : Aabcc5609B (अपीलाथी /Appellant) : (प्रत्यथी) / Respondent) For The Appellant/Assessee: Arati Vissanji For The Respondent/Revenue: C.T. Mathews सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 03.02.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.04.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Rahul Chaudhary: 1. By Way Of The Present Appeal The Appellant/Assessee Has Challenged The Order Dated, 02.12.2019 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 24, Mumbai (Hereafter Referred To As „The Cit(A)‟] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereafter Referred To As „The Act‟), Whereby The Ld. Cit(A) Had Dismissed The Appeal Against The Assessment Order, Dated 29.12.2017, Passed Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 147 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Arati VissanjiFor Respondent: C.T. Mathews
Section 10ASection 10BSection 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

hereafter referred to as „the Act‟), whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal against the Assessment Order, dated 29.12.2017, passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act. 2. The Assessee has raised the following grounds: “1. In the facts and circumstances of the case ... return filed by the Appellant was picked up for detailed scrutiny and vide order, dated 28.02.2014, assessment was framed on the Appellant under Section 143(3) of the Act. The income of the Appellant was assessed at INR 1,00,53,106/- under the provisions of Section 115JB

Royal Home Collections Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT-4(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 910/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 910/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Acit-4(2)(1), Royal Home Collections R. No. 642, 6Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, बिधम/ Plot No. 33, Abcd Govt. Mumbai-400 020 Industrial Estate, Charkop, Vs. Kandivali, Mumbai-400 067 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaccm4922G (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant None : By प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent : Shri T. Shankar, Ld. Dr By सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 09.03.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 13.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)-9, Mumbai Dated 30.01.2019 Pertains To Ay 2014-15. The Solitary Ground Of Appeal Is Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Upholding The Penalty Of Rs. 10,000/- Levied U/S 271(1)(B) Of The I.T. Act.

For Respondent: Shri T. Shankar, Ld. DR by
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 271(1)(b)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, AM & Ms. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM आयकरअपीलसं

ITO (It) -4(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Zubin Russi Jal Taraporevala, Mumbai

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

ITA 2056/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2056/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Ito (It)-4(1)(1), Zubin Russi Jal R. No. 1729, 17Th Floor, Taraporevala, बिधम/ C/O- R. R. Dalal & Co. Air India Building, Ca’S 514, Churchgate Vs. Nariman Point, Chambers, 5, New Marine Mumbai-400 021 Lines, Mumbai-400 020 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaapt6792J (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant : Shri Hero Rai, Ld. Ar By प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent : Shri Hoshang B. Irani, Ld. Dr By सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 21.02.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 13.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-58, Mumbai Dated 14.01.2019 U/S 143(3) For The Ay 2014-15 On The Following Grounds:-

For Appellant: Shri Hero Rai, Ld. AR byFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang B. Irani, Ld
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 50C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, AM, & Ms. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A