← 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)

Himanshu Vasantrai Doshi HUF, Mumbai vs. ITO 23(2)-3, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby partly allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 4352/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 4352 To 4354/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years:2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011 -12) Mr. Himanshu Vasantrai बिधम/ Ito-23(2)(3) 1609, 16Th Floor, Air India Doshi Huf Vs. 29/Cc/4, Ambika Building, Nariman Point, Apartment, Nahur Road, Mumbai-400021. Survodaya Nagar, Mulund (W), Mumbai-400080. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 3688 To 3690/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12) बिधम/ Ito-29(1)(4) Mr. Himanshu Vasantrai C-10, 1St Floor, Pratyaksha Doshi Huf Vs. Kar Bhavan, Bkc, Bandra 29/Cc/4, Ambika (E), Mumbai-400051. Apartment, Nahur Road, Survodaya Nagar, Mulund (W), Mumbai-400080. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaahh6248D (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Bhupendra Shah Revenue By: Shri Shambhu Yadav सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 11/01/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02/03/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Jm): The Assessee As Well As Revenue Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Different Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -40, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys. 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12. Ita. No.4352/Mum/2016

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Shri Shambhu Yadav
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69C

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

ITO 29(1)(4), Mumbai vs. Himanshu Vasantilal Doshi (HUF), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby partly allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 3690/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 4352 To 4354/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years:2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011 -12) Mr. Himanshu Vasantrai बिधम/ Ito-23(2)(3) 1609, 16Th Floor, Air India Doshi Huf Vs. 29/Cc/4, Ambika Building, Nariman Point, Apartment, Nahur Road, Mumbai-400021. Survodaya Nagar, Mulund (W), Mumbai-400080. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 3688 To 3690/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12) बिधम/ Ito-29(1)(4) Mr. Himanshu Vasantrai C-10, 1St Floor, Pratyaksha Doshi Huf Vs. Kar Bhavan, Bkc, Bandra 29/Cc/4, Ambika (E), Mumbai-400051. Apartment, Nahur Road, Survodaya Nagar, Mulund (W), Mumbai-400080. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaahh6248D (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Bhupendra Shah Revenue By: Shri Shambhu Yadav सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 11/01/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02/03/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Jm): The Assessee As Well As Revenue Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Different Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -40, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys. 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12. Ita. No.4352/Mum/2016

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Shri Shambhu Yadav
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69C

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

ITO 29(1)(4), Mumbai vs. Himanshu Vasantilal Doshi (HUF), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby partly allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 3689/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 4352 To 4354/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years:2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011 -12) Mr. Himanshu Vasantrai बिधम/ Ito-23(2)(3) 1609, 16Th Floor, Air India Doshi Huf Vs. 29/Cc/4, Ambika Building, Nariman Point, Apartment, Nahur Road, Mumbai-400021. Survodaya Nagar, Mulund (W), Mumbai-400080. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 3688 To 3690/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12) बिधम/ Ito-29(1)(4) Mr. Himanshu Vasantrai C-10, 1St Floor, Pratyaksha Doshi Huf Vs. Kar Bhavan, Bkc, Bandra 29/Cc/4, Ambika (E), Mumbai-400051. Apartment, Nahur Road, Survodaya Nagar, Mulund (W), Mumbai-400080. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaahh6248D (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Bhupendra Shah Revenue By: Shri Shambhu Yadav सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 11/01/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02/03/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Jm): The Assessee As Well As Revenue Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Different Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -40, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys. 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12. Ita. No.4352/Mum/2016

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Shri Shambhu Yadav
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69C

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

ITO 29(1)(4), Mumbai vs. Himanshu Vasantilal Doshi (HUF), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby partly allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 3688/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 4352 To 4354/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years:2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011 -12) Mr. Himanshu Vasantrai बिधम/ Ito-23(2)(3) 1609, 16Th Floor, Air India Doshi Huf Vs. 29/Cc/4, Ambika Building, Nariman Point, Apartment, Nahur Road, Mumbai-400021. Survodaya Nagar, Mulund (W), Mumbai-400080. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 3688 To 3690/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12) बिधम/ Ito-29(1)(4) Mr. Himanshu Vasantrai C-10, 1St Floor, Pratyaksha Doshi Huf Vs. Kar Bhavan, Bkc, Bandra 29/Cc/4, Ambika (E), Mumbai-400051. Apartment, Nahur Road, Survodaya Nagar, Mulund (W), Mumbai-400080. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaahh6248D (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Bhupendra Shah Revenue By: Shri Shambhu Yadav सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 11/01/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02/03/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Jm): The Assessee As Well As Revenue Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Different Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -40, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys. 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12. Ita. No.4352/Mum/2016

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Shri Shambhu Yadav
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69C

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

Kakkabe vs. S Bank Limited, Kodugu

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 490/BANG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Kakkabe Vssn Bank The Principal Ltd., Commissioner Of Main Road, Kakkabe, Income-Tax, Kodagu – 571 212. Mysore. Pan: Aaabk0958P Vs. Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Cit I Date Of Hearing : 31-01-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-02-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Arises Out Of Order Dated 06.03.2020 Passed By Ld.Pr.Cit, Mysore On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Impugned Order As Passed By The Hon'Ble Pr.Cit U/S 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 Is Arbitrary, Unjust & Illegal Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant Case. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & On Law, The Hon'Ble Pr.Cit Has Assumed The Jurisdiction U/S 263 Under Incorrect Application Of Law As Twin Condition Of "Erroneous Order & Prejudicial To Interest Of Revenue" As Enunciated U/S 263 Were Not Satisfied Simultaneously & Therefore Assumption Of Jurisdiction U/S 263 & Impugned Order Passed Thereunder Liable To Be Quashed As Void-Ab-Initio. 3. On The Facts & Circumstances & Law, The Original Order Passed By The Learned Ao Was After Proper Application Of Mind & Proper Appreciations Of Law & The Intervention Caused By The Hon'Ble Pr. Cit By Invoking The Provisions Of Section 263 Has No Sanction Of Settled

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT I
Section 143(3)Section 260Section 263Section 80P(1)Section 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL

M/S Tata Elxsi Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Special Range-7, Bangalore

In the result the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 907/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Tata Elxsi Ltd., The Assistant Itpl Road, Commissioner Of Hoody, Income Tax, Whitefield Road, Ao As Special Range 7, Bangalore – 560 048. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaact7872Q Appellant Respondent : Shri Padam Chand Assessee By Khincha, Ca : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 21-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-02-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal By The Assessee Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 25.03.2019 By Ld.Cit(A)-7, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2013-14 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. General Ground 1.1 The Learned Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax- Circle 7(1)(1) (`A0'), Bangalore Has Erred In Passing The Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (`The Act') In The Manner Passed By Him & The Commissioner Of Income Tax-(Appeals)-7 (`Cit(A)') Has Erred In Partly Confirming The Said Assessment Order. The Said Order To The Extent Prejudicial To The Appellant Is Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed. 2. Grounds Relating To Disallowance Of Deduction Under Section 80Jjaa Of The Act 2.1. The Learned Ao Has Erred In Disallowing Deduction Under Section 80Jjaa Amounting To Rs. 13,14,23,244/-

For Respondent: Shri Padam Chand
Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 28Section 37Section 80J

Ground 1.1 The learned Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax- Circle 7(1)(1) (`A0'), Bangalore has erred in passing the assessment order under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (`the Act') in the manner passed by him and the Commissioner of Income Tax-(Appeals