← 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)

Rajhans Paper Company, Mumbai vs. ITO -14(2)-3, Mumbai

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

ITA 1237/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1237/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Rajhans Paper Company बिधम/ Ito, Ward-23(3)(2) C/O Shirish H. Shah & Co. ½, Mumbai. Vs. Mangrol Mansion 6, Rustom Sidhwa Marg, Fort, Mumbai- 400001. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaffr8622J (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rahul Sarda Revenue By: Shri T. Shankar (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 10/02/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 04/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 16.12.2013 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -25, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2009- 10. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “(A) Principles Of Natural Justice Violated 1. The Ld. Cit(A)-25, Mumbai Erred On Facts & In Law In Not Giving A Reasonable & Sufficient Opportunity Of Being Heard Before Passing The Order Conforming The Order Of The Income Tax Officer-14(3)(2), Mumbai(Ao). A.Y. 2009-10 2. The Learned (Cit(A) Erred In Stating That The Appellant Has Not Disputed The Figure Of Unaccounted Out Of The Books Excess Stock At Rs.25,95,321/-, As Against The Figure Of Rs.18,14,908/- As Computed As Per Appellant’S Earlier Letter Dated 15.04.2009. (B) Addition U/S 69-Rs.25,95,321/-

For Appellant: Shri Rahul SardaFor Respondent: Shri T. Shankar (Sr. AR)
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40Section 69

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

M/S. United Spirits Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 2701/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.2701/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2013-2014 M/S.United Spirits Limited The Deputy Commissioner Of Ub Towers, Income-Tax, Circle 7(1)(1) V. No.24 Vittal Mallya Road Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 001. Pan : Aaccm8043J. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Percy Pardiwala, Senior Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Pradeep Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 05.04.2022 Date Of Hearing : 24.03.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Final Assessment Order Dated 12.10.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2013-2014. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Manufacture & Sale Of Alcoholic Beverage. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2013-2014 On 28.11.2013 Which Was Selected For Scrutiny Assessment. During The Course Of Assessment, The Assessee’S Case Was Also Referred To The Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo). The Tpo Vide Order Dated 26.10.2016, Recommended Transfer Pricing Adjustments. The A.O., Thereafter, Passed A Draft Assessment Order Dated 30.12.2016. 2 It(Tp)A No.2701/Bang/2017 M/S.United Spirits Limited.

For Appellant: Sri.Percy Pardiwala, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 234CSection 36(1)(iii)

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

Ants Ceramics P Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr.CIT-1, Thane

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

ITA 970/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Apr 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 970/Mum/2021 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2017-18) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 971/Mum/2021 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2016-17) बनधम/ Ants Ceramics Pvt. Ltd. Pcit, Thane-1 B Wing, Ashar It Park, 6Th 1 Jivdani Ind. Estate No.1, Vs. Off. Western Express Floor, Road No.16Z, Highway, Dhumal Nagar, Wagle Industrial Estate, Vasai Road (E), 401208. Thane (W), Thane, Maharashtra-400604. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aafca3194D (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. Assessee By: Shri Anil Sathe Revenue By: Ms. Shailja Rai (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 03/01/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 01/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Different Order Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Thane-1 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Pcit”] Relevant To The A.Ys.2016-17 & 2017-18 In Which The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Pcit”] Has Invoked The Provisions U/S 263 Of The I.T. Act, 1961. Ita. No. 971/Mum/2021 2. The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 22.03.2021 Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Thane- Relevant To The A.Y.2016-17 In Which The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Has Invoked The Revisional Power U/S 263 Of The I.T. Act, 1961. 2

For Appellant: Shri Anil SatheFor Respondent: Ms. Shailja Rai (DR)
Section 139(1)Section 263Section 35

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