← 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)

Oriental Aromatics Ltd, Mumbi, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 1(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6331/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2022AY 2014-15
Section 143(3)Section 4Section 92(1)

challenged the correctness of the order dated 30th August 2019 passe by the learned CIT(A) in the matter of assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2014- 15. 2. The first issue requiring our adjudication, in this case

Shri. Narendranath Mehra, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 3(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 4880/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2022AY 2013-14
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)

this appeal, the assessee-appellant has challenged correctness of the order dated 1st May 2019, in the matter of assessment under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961 for the assessment year 2013-14. 2. Grievances raised by the appellant are as follows:- 1. The orders passed

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 17(2)), Mumbai vs. Navjbai Ratan Tata Trust, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue being ITA No

ITA 2162/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

Section 11Section 13(1)(d)Section 164(2)Section 2Section 250

redeemable preference shares of Tata Sons Ltd. The Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as “the AO”), vide order dated 18.03.2014 passed under section 143(3) of the Act observed that the assessee trust was founded by Shri Ratan Naval Tata and Late Shri Nani A. Palkhiwala. Shri Ratan N. Tata ... Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15 assets in the computation of income. The AO vide order passed under section 143(3) of the Act rejected the claim of the assessee on the ground that same tantamount to double deduction. Firstly, by way of claiming

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 17(2)), Mumbai vs. Navjbai Ratan Tata Trust, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue being ITA No

ITA 2161/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

Section 11Section 13(1)(d)Section 164(2)Section 2Section 250

redeemable preference shares of Tata Sons Ltd. The Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as “the AO”), vide order dated 18.03.2014 passed under section 143(3) of the Act observed that the assessee trust was founded by Shri Ratan Naval Tata and Late Shri Nani A. Palkhiwala. Shri Ratan N. Tata ... Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15 assets in the computation of income. The AO vide order passed under section 143(3) of the Act rejected the claim of the assessee on the ground that same tantamount to double deduction. Firstly, by way of claiming

Navjbai Ratan Tata Trust, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 17(2)), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue being ITA No

ITA 2116/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

Section 11Section 13(1)(d)Section 164(2)Section 2Section 250

redeemable preference shares of Tata Sons Ltd. The Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as “the AO”), vide order dated 18.03.2014 passed under section 143(3) of the Act observed that the assessee trust was founded by Shri Ratan Naval Tata and Late Shri Nani A. Palkhiwala. Shri Ratan N. Tata ... Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15 assets in the computation of income. The AO vide order passed under section 143(3) of the Act rejected the claim of the assessee on the ground that same tantamount to double deduction. Firstly, by way of claiming

Navjbai Ratan Tata Trust, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 17(2)), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue being ITA No

ITA 2115/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

Section 11Section 13(1)(d)Section 164(2)Section 2Section 250

redeemable preference shares of Tata Sons Ltd. The Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as “the AO”), vide order dated 18.03.2014 passed under section 143(3) of the Act observed that the assessee trust was founded by Shri Ratan Naval Tata and Late Shri Nani A. Palkhiwala. Shri Ratan N. Tata ... Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15 assets in the computation of income. The AO vide order passed under section 143(3) of the Act rejected the claim of the assessee on the ground that same tantamount to double deduction. Firstly, by way of claiming

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 17(2)), Mumbai vs. Navjbai Ratan Tata Trust, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue being ITA No

ITA 1316/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

Section 11Section 13(1)(d)Section 164(2)Section 2Section 250

redeemable preference shares of Tata Sons Ltd. The Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as “the AO”), vide order dated 18.03.2014 passed under section 143(3) of the Act observed that the assessee trust was founded by Shri Ratan Naval Tata and Late Shri Nani A. Palkhiwala. Shri Ratan N. Tata ... Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15 assets in the computation of income. The AO vide order passed under section 143(3) of the Act rejected the claim of the assessee on the ground that same tantamount to double deduction. Firstly, by way of claiming

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 17(2)), Mumbai vs. Navjbai Ratan Tata Trust, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue being ITA No

ITA 1314/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

Section 11Section 13(1)(d)Section 164(2)Section 2Section 250

redeemable preference shares of Tata Sons Ltd. The Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as “the AO”), vide order dated 18.03.2014 passed under section 143(3) of the Act observed that the assessee trust was founded by Shri Ratan Naval Tata and Late Shri Nani A. Palkhiwala. Shri Ratan N. Tata ... Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15 assets in the computation of income. The AO vide order passed under section 143(3) of the Act rejected the claim of the assessee on the ground that same tantamount to double deduction. Firstly, by way of claiming

Navjbai Ratan Tata Trust, Mumbai vs. Additional Director of Income Tax (Exemptions) Range-II(Now Assessed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 17(2)), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue being ITA No

ITA 1302/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

Section 11Section 13(1)(d)Section 164(2)Section 2Section 250

redeemable preference shares of Tata Sons Ltd. The Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as “the AO”), vide order dated 18.03.2014 passed under section 143(3) of the Act observed that the assessee trust was founded by Shri Ratan Naval Tata and Late Shri Nani A. Palkhiwala. Shri Ratan N. Tata ... Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15 assets in the computation of income. The AO vide order passed under section 143(3) of the Act rejected the claim of the assessee on the ground that same tantamount to double deduction. Firstly, by way of claiming

Navjbai Ratan Tata Trust, Mumbai vs. Additional Director of Income Tax (Exemptions) Range-II(Now Assessed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 17(2)), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue being ITA No

ITA 1301/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

Section 11Section 13(1)(d)Section 164(2)Section 2Section 250

redeemable preference shares of Tata Sons Ltd. The Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as “the AO”), vide order dated 18.03.2014 passed under section 143(3) of the Act observed that the assessee trust was founded by Shri Ratan Naval Tata and Late Shri Nani A. Palkhiwala. Shri Ratan N. Tata ... Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15 assets in the computation of income. The AO vide order passed under section 143(3) of the Act rejected the claim of the assessee on the ground that same tantamount to double deduction. Firstly, by way of claiming

V2 Tech Ventures P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT 15(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above

ITA 777/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2022AY 2011-12
Section 143(3)

this appeal, the assessee appellant has challenged correctness of the order dated 9th January 2016 passed by the learned Assessing Officer under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C (13) of the Income Tax Act 1961 for the assessment year 2010-11. 2. The first grievance raised in this appeal is that

M/S Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 83/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Kumar Jain & Siddhesh Chaugule, ARsFor Respondent: Smt. S Praveena, CIT(DRP-2)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 250Section 40Section 40aSection 9(1)(vii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. PADMAVATHY S

Triumph International Finance India Ltd., Mumbai vs. Jt. CIT (OSD), CC-7(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 195/MUM/2021[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2022AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos.195 To 197/Mum/2021 (A.Ys.1998-99, 1999-2000 & 2002-03)

For Appellant: Rajiv KhandelwalFor Respondent: Dr. P. Daniel
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

1 ITA Nos. 195 to 197/Mum/2021 A.Ys. 1998-99, 1999-2000 & 2002-03 Triumph International Finance India Ltd. Vs. JCIT

Pravin Laxmichand Chheda, Mumbai vs. ACIT 24(3), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 509/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleshri Pravin Laxmichand Vs. Acit – 24(3) Chheda Room No. 413, 4Th 302, Aavishkar Society, Floor, Piramal Sv Road, Irla Bridge Chambers, Parel Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400012 Mumbai – 400058 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabpc1278P Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Yogesh Thar. Ar Respondent By : Mr.Naveen Kumar. Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 16.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 04.03.2022 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 (Appeals)- 36, Mumbai Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. (A) The Learned Cit (Appeals) Erred In Law & Facts In Confirming The Action Of The Learned Assessing Officer Of Assessing The Loan Taken From Sadguru Krupa Constructions Pvt. Ltd. (Herein Referred As "Company") On 05.05.2013 Of Pravin Laxmichand Chheda., Mumbai. Rs.25,00,000/- As Deemed Dividend U/S 2(22)(E) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. (B) The Learned Cit (Appeals) Failed To Appreciate The Fact That The Company Did Not Have Accumulated Profits As On The Date On Which The Loan Was Advanced. (C) The Learned Cit (Appeals) Erred In Law By Confirming The Manner Of Computation Of Accumulated Profits Adopted By The Learned Assessing Officer. (D) The Learned Cit (Appeals) Erred In Law By Not Appreciating The Fact That The Company Had Followed The Principles Of Revenue Recognition Laid Down In Accounting Standard 9 Issued By Icai. (E) The Learned Cit (Appeals) Erred In Law In Relying On The Statement Of Mr. Dllip Porwal Without Giving Your Appellant The Opportunity To Cross-Examine Him. (F) Your Appellant Prays That The Additions Made U/S 2(22)(E) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 Is Against The Provisions Of Law & Against The Principals Of Natural Justice & May Please Be Deleted.

For Appellant: Mr.Yogesh Thar. ARFor Respondent: Mr.Naveen Kumar. Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE

Luxora Infrastructure P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle-2(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1608/MUM/2020[201-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2022

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 234ASection 68

held that the assessment has attained finality, then the Assessing Officer while passing the independent assessment order under section 153A read with section 143(3) could not have disturbed the assessment/reassessment order which has attained finality, unless the materials gathered in the course of the proceedings under section 153A establish ... material was unearthed during the search or during the 153A proceedings, the Assessing Officer while passing order under section 153A read with section 143(3) cannot disturb the assessment order." A reading of the above makes it clear that it was expounded that in case of assessments which have attained

M/S Playsimple Games Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle - 5(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1125/BANG/2019[2016/17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Mar 2022

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Kumar Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 234BSection 234DSection 40Section 9(1)(vi)

grounds to be adducted, as part of this appeal/ at the time of personal hearing, the appellant prays that the order passed under section 143(3) be quashed or in the alternative, • Online advertisement expenditure disallowed u/s 40(a)(ia) amounting to Rs. 5,06,48,758 be deleted; • Consequential ... were also issued on various dates, calling for details, which were duly submitted by the Appellant. The AO passed the assessment order under section 143(3), dated 24.12.2018. 3. During the year, the appellant made certain payments to vendors outside India towards online advertisements amounting

Icici Bank Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Dy CIT -2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result we hold that the learned principal

ITA 737/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Icici Bank Limited The Dy. Commissioner Of Icici Bank Towers, Income-Tax-2(3)(1), Aayakar Bhavan, 5 Th Floor, Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. Bandra (East), Room No.552, Mumbai-400 051 M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaci1195H Appellant By : Ms Arati Vissanji, Ar Respondent By : Shri Nikhil Chaudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.03.2022

For Appellant: Ms Arati Vissanji, ARFor Respondent: Shri Nikhil Chaudhary, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 263(1)Section 263(2)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

holding that assessment order passed by The Assistant Commissioner of Income tax Circle -2 (3) (2), Mumbai [ the ld AO ] under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act dated 3rd December, 2018 is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. ICICI Bank ... erred in passing an order under section 263 setting aside the assessment order dated December 31, 2018 passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act on the ground that the Assessing Officer in not examining the following issues has rendered the order as erroneous and prejudicial

Dy CIT - 8(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Tata Aig General Insurance Co.Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, ground No. 3 of the appeal is dismissed

ITA 14/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am The Dy. Commissioner Of M/S Tata Aig General Income Tax-8(3)(1), Insurance Co. Ltd. 15Th Floor, Tower A, Aayakar Bhavan, Room No. 615, Peninsula Corporate Park, Vs. M.K. Road, G.K. Marg, New Marine Lines, Mumbai- Lower Parel, 400 020 Mumbai-400 013 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabct3518Q Appellant By : Shri Rajesh Damor, Cit Dr Respondent By : S/Shri J.D. Mistry & Madhur Agrawal, Ars’ Date Of Hearing: 23.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.03.2022

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Damor, CIT DRFor Respondent: S/Shri J.D. Mistry & Madhur
Section 143(3)Section 32Section 37(1)Section 40Section 44

Income-Tax Act, [ the Act] read with Rule 5 of the Schedule. The learned Assessing Officer passed an order under section 143(3) of the Act on 31.12.2018 at ₹1,33,26,67,350/-. The assessee preferred an appeal against 14 different disallowances/ additions made by the learned Assessing Officer

Ups Asia Group Pte Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asstt. CIT (International Taxation)-4(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid findings

ITA 1220/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Milind S. Chavan, Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 9(1)(i)

SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M. The captioned appeal has been filed by the assessee against the final assessment order dated 29.04.2021 passed under section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") by the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2017–18. UPS Asia ... objections filed by the assessee. The Assessing Officer, in conformity with the directions issued by the DRP, passed the final assessment order under section 143(3) r/w section 144C(13) of the Act. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. UPS Asia Group Pte. Ltd. ITA No.1220/Mum./2021

Bank of Baroda, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT - 2, Mumbai

In the result, and subject to the observations made in paragraph 7 above, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1687/MUM/2020[2017-18]Status: PendingITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2022AY 2017-18
Section 143(3)Section 263

respect of Foreign Currency Translation Reserve, has rendered the order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The assessment order under section 143(3) dated 19th March 2019 has been, on this basis, set aside for adjudication de novo, and it is this action of the learned Principal