← 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)

Shagun Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. JCIT, Range-23, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 783/DEL/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shagun Jewellers Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Jcit, A-3/179, Paschim Vihar, West Range-23, Delhi, Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aafcs4608A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Lalit Mohan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Dubey, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 269SSection 27Section 271DSection 27I

appeal the assessee made a submission on 09.08.2019 stating that the assessee has filed appeal against the order u/s 147 read with section 143(3) of the Act and therefore, the penalty proceedings may be kept in abeyance till the conclusion of the appeal. The assessee submitted that the receipt ... beneficiary. He further held that the ld CIT(A) has confirmed the addition in appeal against the order passed u/s 147 read with section 143(3) vide order dated 19.11.2019 which clearly shows that name of the appellant is there in the seized material. He therefore, held that the facts

Bhupesh Kumar, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 43(3), New Delhi

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

ITA 5530/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2016-17 Bhupesh Kumar, Vs Ito, 380, 1St Floor, Block-B, Ward 43(3), Sector-19, Dwarka, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Ahmpk6335M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Vijay Kumar Kataria, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2021 Order This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Ex Parte Order Dated 7Th June, 2019 Of The Cit(A)-15, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Despite Issue Of Notice Through Rpad. Therefore, This Appeal Is Being Decided On The Basis Of Material Available On Record & After Hearing The Ld. Dr 3. Although A Number Of Grounds Have Been Raised By The Assessee, These All Relate To The Ex Parte Order Of The Cit(A) In Sustaining The Addition Of Rs.22,94,977/- Made By The Ao In The Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The It Act, 1961. 4. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income On 30Th December, 2016 Declaring The Total Income At Rs.3,45,440/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny To Verify The Cash In Hand Shown In The Income-Tax Return. Notice U/S 143(2) & A Questionnaire Along With Notice U/S 142(1) Was Issued & Served On The Assessee On Different Dates. From The Various Details Furnished By The Assessee, The Ao Noted That The Assessee Could Not Explain The Huge Difference Of Rs.22,94,977/- In Cash In Hand As Compared To Last Year’S Balance Sheet. Although Due Opportunity Was Granted By The Ao, However, There Was No Satisfactory Compliance From The Side Of The Assessee To His Query. The Ao Noted That The Cash In Hand As On 31.03.2015 Was Rs.17,26,593/- Whereas The Cash Balance As On 31.03.2016 Was Rs.40,21,870/-. Since The Difference Of Rs.22,94,977/- Remained Unexplained, The Ao Made Addition Of The Same To The Total Income Of The Assessee.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Kataria, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : SMC-2 : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year

Parveen Kumar Kapoor, Faridabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 2, Faridabad

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2658/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 127Section 140Section 143(2)Section 153Section 153A

submitted that as per the decision when no incriminating document were found under the proceedings u/s 153A read with Section 143(3) the assessment itself is bad in law. The Ld. AR further submitted that the assessment is abated in Assessment Year 2009- 10 & 2010-11, since the assessment should

Parveen Kumar Kapoor, Faridabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 2, Faridabad

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2657/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 127Section 140Section 143(2)Section 153Section 153A

submitted that as per the decision when no incriminating document were found under the proceedings u/s 153A read with Section 143(3) the assessment itself is bad in law. The Ld. AR further submitted that the assessment is abated in Assessment Year 2009- 10 & 2010-11, since the assessment should

Air Liquide Engineering India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 15(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 7712/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 7712/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Air Liquide Engineering India Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, A-24/10, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Circle-15(2), Area, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110044 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabca7383G Assessee By : Sh. Amit Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Shashi Kajla , Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 26.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.07.2021

For Appellant: Sh. Amit Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Shashi Kajla , Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘I-1’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Amit Shukla, Judicial Member Dr. B

National Building Construction Corporation Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 18(1), New Delhi

Appeals are disposed of by this common order

ITA 4287/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamblea N D Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Sachin Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Pundir, Sr. D. R
Section 140ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 244ASection 37(1)Section 40

filed its return of income on 19.09.2012 at Rs.316,99,33,720/- which was revised to Rs.298,60,80,260/-. The assessment under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) was made on 31.03.2015 wherein following three disallowances were made: a. Disallowance under Section

Addlcit, Special Range-6, Neww Delhi vs. National Building Construction Corporation Ltd., New Delhi

Appeals are disposed of by this common order

ITA 4165/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamblea N D Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Sachin Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Pundir, Sr. D. R
Section 140ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 244ASection 37(1)Section 40

filed its return of income on 19.09.2012 at Rs.316,99,33,720/- which was revised to Rs.298,60,80,260/-. The assessment under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) was made on 31.03.2015 wherein following three disallowances were made: a. Disallowance under Section

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Hero Motocorp Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3537/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conferencing) Dcit Vs. M/S. Hero Motocorp Ltd., Circle – 11(1), 34, Basant Lok, Vasant New Delhi Vihar, New Delhi Pan No. Aaach 0812 J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Prakash Dubey, Sr. D.R. Revenue By Shri Gaurav Jain, Adv. Ms. Manisha Sharma, Adv. Date Of Hearing: 15/07/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 26/07/2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am:

Section 143(3)Section 194Section 271(1)(c)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 35(1)(iv)Section 40Section 80I

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘G’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. KULDIP

Jas Forwarding Worldwide Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011 – 12 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1687/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor advocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Barnwal, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 40Section 92CSection 92C(2)

Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Transfer Pricing Officer-1 (3) ("the Ld. TPO")] vide final assessment order dated February 28, 2014 passed under Section 143 (3) read with Section 144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") is not in accordance with the law and therefore not sustainable. That ... both in law and on facts by summarily rejecting the Appellant's objections to the draft order passed by the Ld. AO under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C(1) of the Act ("the draft assessment order"). The Hon'ble DRP while issuing directions under Section 144C

Jas Forwarding Worldwide Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011 – 12 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2484/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor advocateFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Pal [CIT] – DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 40Section 92CSection 92C(2)

Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Transfer Pricing Officer-1 (3) ("the Ld. TPO")] vide final assessment order dated February 28, 2014 passed under Section 143 (3) read with Section 144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") is not in accordance with the law and therefore not sustainable. That ... both in law and on facts by summarily rejecting the Appellant's objections to the draft order passed by the Ld. AO under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C(1) of the Act ("the draft assessment order"). The Hon'ble DRP while issuing directions under Section 144C

Seema Chauhan, Hisar vs. ITO Ward - 4, Hisar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 1469/DEL/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year : 2010-11 Seema Chauhan, Vs Ito, 440, Defence Colony, Hisar, Ward-4, Haryana-125001. Hisar. Pan-Agepc5627R Appellant Respondent Appellant By Sh. Lalit Mohan, Ca Respondent By Sh.Gaurav Pundir, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 23.07.2021

Section 144Section 147Section 250(6)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “SMC-1” BENCH: NEW DELHI (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL

Sandeep Chauhan, Hisar vs. ITO Ward - 4, Hisar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 1468/DEL/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year : 2010-11 Sandeep Chauhan, Vs Ito, 440, Defence Colony, Hisar, Ward-4, Haryana-125001. Hisar. Pan-Agepc5626Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By Sh. Lalit Mohan, Ca Respondent By Sh.Gaurav Pundir, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 23.07.2021

Section 144Section 147Section 250(6)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “SMC-1” BENCH: NEW DELHI (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL

Qube Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 20(3), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 2533/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year : 2015-16 Qube Services Pvt.Ltd., Vs Ito, C-23, 24, Sant Ram Road, Ward-20(3), Asola, Fatehpur Bheri, New Delhi. New Delhi-110074. Pan-Aaacq3346G Appellant Respondent Appellant By Sh. Prasanna Agiga, Ca Respondent By Sh.Gaurav Pundir, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 23.07.2021

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “SMC-1” BENCH: NEW DELHI (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL

Mason Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 16(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3409/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

Section 143(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘E’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI K.NARASIMHA CHARY

Mayar India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 16(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 6766/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Ramesh Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80G

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’ NEW DLEHI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI K

Jamaluddin, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ward- 1(3), Ghaziabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2627/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jul 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

Section 143(3)Section 69

assessment year 2014-15 he had filed his return of income on 24/9/2014 declaring an income of Rs. 4,87,790/-. Assessment under section 143(3)/144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) at an income of Rs. 68, 87, 790/-by making addition

Jagat Singh, Jind vs. ITO, Ward- 38(3), New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2522/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jul 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri K.N. Chary[A.Y 2009-10]

For Appellant: Shri R.R. Singla, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Anima, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘C’ BENCH, NEW DELHI [THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE] BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Inmstronics Ltd., New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 3360/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jul 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri K.N. Chary[A.Y 2008-09]

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Anima, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 35DSection 69C

also the case laws relied upon by the appellant. 12.1 It is an undisputed fact that the additions made in the order under section 143(3)/153C dated 31.12.2010 amounting to Rs.2,46,38,909/- has been deleted by Hon'ble ITAT, by quashing the order

Raj Kumar Chhabra, Haryana vs. ITO Ward-2(2), Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 29/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jul 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing] Assessment Year: 2011-12

Section 44ASection 54F

Aggrieved with the addition of ₹ 32,50,000/- by the Assessing Officer in assessment order dated 05/12/2018 passed under section 147 read with section 143(3) of the Act, the assessee preferred appeal before the Learned CIT(A), but could not succeed. The Ld. CIT(A) rejected the contention

Shyam Sunder Jindal, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 30, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2246/DEL/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jul 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing] Assessment Year: 2007-08

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 275

erred in not appreciating that the impugned penalty order was passed without recording requisite satisfaction in the assessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act, which is sine qua non for assumption of jurisdiction. 1.2. That the CIT (A) erred in not appreciating that the impugned