← 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)

Lord Krishna Rice Mills, Karnal vs. ITO, Ward-2, Karnal

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

ITA 9009/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2014-15 Lord Krishna Rice Mills, Vs Ito, C/O S.B. Gupta, Advocate, Ward-2, 3/93, Mall Road, Karnal. Karnal, Haryana. Pan : Aabfl5926H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Mrs. Shivani Bansal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 10.03.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.03.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27Th September, 2019 Of The Cit(A), Karnal, Relating To The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Partnership Firm & Derives Income From Manufacturing & Trading Of Rice By Husking Of Paddy & Sales Thereof. It Filed Its Return Of Income On 25Th September, 2013 Declaring An Income Of Rs.3,41,830/-. The Ao Completed The Assessment U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 15Th February, 2016 Determining The Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs.7,65,330/- Wherein He Made Certain Additions. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Assessee Has Claimed Additional Depreciation On Purchase Of Machinery Of Rs.1,17,14,501/-. The Claim Of The Assessee For Additional Depreciation Was Rejected By The Ao Keeping In View Of The Decision Of The Hon’Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of M/S Goetze (India) Ltd. Vs. Cit Reported In 284 Itr 323, Since The Said Additional Depreciation Was Not Claimed By The Assessee Either In The Original Return Or Through The Revised Return.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mrs. Shivani Bansal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 254Section 32(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : SMC-1 : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS

Gap International Sourcing (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-10(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessees is dismissed

ITA 7452/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2011-12 Gap International Sourcing (India) Vs Dcit, Pvt. Ltd., Circle-10(1), Unit No.201, Dlf South Court, New Delhi. District Centre, Saket, New Delhi. Pan: Aaccg3437E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nishant Saini & Shri Shashank Choudhary. Revenue By : Shri Surenderpal, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.03.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.03.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27Th September, 2018 Passed By The Ao U/S 143(3) R.W.Ss 144C & 254 Of The It Act, 1961 Relating To Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Filed An Application Seeking Withdrawal Of The Appeal On The Ground That The Assessee Had Filed A Rectification Application Before The Drp Who Passed The Order On 11Th December, 2018 Wherein The Drp Accepted The Contention Of The Assessee & Directed The Tpo To Recompute The Adjustment. Subsequently, The Tpo Deleted The Entire Addition And, Therefore, This Appeal Becomes Infructuous. He Accordingly Submitted That The Appeal Filed By The Assessee May Be Allowed To Be Withdrawn.

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Saini &For Respondent: Shri Surenderpal, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : I-1 : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI