← 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)

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bengaluru vs. Mathikere Ramaiah Seetharam, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1296/BANG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

For Appellant: Shri H.N Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Muthu Shankar, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2(47)(v)

under the head business for land development. 2.1 In the reassessment order framed under section 147 read with section 143(3) of the Act, the Assessing Officer held that the assessee had entered into a Joint Development Agreement (JDA) with M/s G Corp Homes Pvt. Ltd. under which the assessee

Course5 Intelligence Limited, Bangalore vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru-2, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1288/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2020-21 Course5 Intelligent Ltd., Vs. Pcit - 2, Unit 104, Ladybird Building C4, 1St Floor, Bangalore. Brigade Tech Gardens Sez, Kundalahallis.O. Bangalore North, Bangalore– 560 037, Karnataka. Pan : Aabcc 6525 A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Suman Lunkar, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Balusamy N, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 12.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.11.2025

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Balusamy N, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(va)

filed detailed written submissions. After considering the written submissions the AO disallowed Rs.6,59,463/- towards education cess and income was assessed under section 143(3) of the Act at Rs.6,22,91,483/- on 28.09.2022. Page 2 of 4 3. The learned Pr,CIT exercised his jurisdiction under section

Mathikere Ramaiah Seetharam, Mathikere vs. ACIT, Circle-1(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1286/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

For Appellant: Shri H.N Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Muthu Shankar, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2(47)(v)

under the head business for land development. 2.1 In the reassessment order framed under section 147 read with section 143(3) of the Act, the Assessing Officer held that the assessee had entered into a Joint Development Agreement (JDA) with M/s G Corp Homes Pvt. Ltd. under which the assessee

Chowdadenahalli Rangaswamy Manohara, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1099/BANG/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2014-15 Shri. Chowdadenahally Rangaswamy Manohar, Vs. Dcit, No.88/89, M C Halli, Chikka Tirupati Road, Central Circle – 2(1), Sarjapura, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore. Bangalore – 562 125. Pan : Ajzpm 9900 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Tirumala Naidu, Ar Revenue By : Shri. Shivanand H Kalakeri, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 19.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri. Tirumala Naidu, ARFor Respondent: Shri. Shivanand H Kalakeri, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 37

section 139 of the Act on 30.11.2014 admitting total income of Page 2 of 13 Rs.13,49,557/-. Assessment proceeding was completed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act on 29.12.2017 assessing income at Rs.5,14,90,650/-. Subsequently in 154 proceeding Order dated 06.03.2018, demand was reduced ... income. In the first search proceedings conducted on 15.03.2016 and pursuant to search on 15.03.2016, the case of the assessee was completed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act and raised demand of Rs.2,60,93,360/-. There was another search on 01.01.2019 under section 153A

DCIT, CC-2(1), Bengaluru vs. Mathikere Ramaiah Seetharam, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1028/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

For Appellant: Shri H.N Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Muthu Shankar, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2(47)(v)

under the head business for land development. 2.1 In the reassessment order framed under section 147 read with section 143(3) of the Act, the Assessing Officer held that the assessee had entered into a Joint Development Agreement (JDA) with M/s G Corp Homes Pvt. Ltd. under which the assessee

DCIT, CC- 2(1), Blr, Bengaluru vs. Mathikere Ramaiah Seetharam, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1027/BANG/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

For Appellant: Shri H.N Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Muthu Shankar, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2(47)(v)

under the head business for land development. 2.1 In the reassessment order framed under section 147 read with section 143(3) of the Act, the Assessing Officer held that the assessee had entered into a Joint Development Agreement (JDA) with M/s G Corp Homes Pvt. Ltd. under which the assessee

Microsoft Research Lab India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 4(1)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal is set aside for doing it denovo

ITA 1842/BANG/2024[AY 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2025

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S. & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

For Appellant: Sri Nageshwar RaoFor Respondent: Dr. Divya K.J
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 144C(2)Section 144C(3)Section 153Section 153BSection 250

whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had disposed off the appeal against the Final Assessment Order, dated 23/04/2021, passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B of the Act for the Assessment Year 2017-2018. 2. By way of Ground No. 5 raised in the present appeal, the Assessee

Marvell India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 1608/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Rahul Chaudharym/S. Marvell India Private Limited 10Th Floor, Tower D & E Global Technology Park, Marathahalli Outer Ring Road Devarabeesanahalli Village Varthurhobli Bangalore 560 103 ………. Appellant [Pan: Aaecm5559R]

For Appellant: Sri Chavali NarayanFor Respondent: Sri Muthu Shankar
Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 200ASection 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 270ASection 274Section 28

directed against the Final Assessment Order, dated 27/06/2024, passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’] as per the direction of the Dispute Resolution

Huhtamaki Food Services Packaging India P Ltd (Erstwhile Known As M/S. Valpack Solutions P Ltd), Thane vs. ACIT, Cir-7(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6064/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhailhuhtamaki Foodservice Packaging India Pvt. Ltd. (Erstwhile Known As ‘M/S. Valpack Solutions Pvt. Ltd.), 54/B, Hissa No.3A, Jangid Commercial Point S No.54 B Hissa No.3A Jangid C, Vadpe B.O. ............... Appellant Dhamangaon, Thane – 421302 Pan : Aaecv1431D V/S Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle - 7(1)(1)., ……………… Respondent Mumbai

For Appellant: Shri Aditya RamachandranFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

debited to the P & L account 3 claiming it as a revenue expenditure. The Assessing Officer (“AO”), vide order dated 20.12.2017 passed under section 143(3) of the Act, disagreed with the submissions of the assessee and held the expenditure incurred for increase in the authorized share capital ... plant & machinery. Since the foreign exchange loss was on account of the purchase of a fixed asset, the AO vide order passed under section 143(3) of the Act held that the said loss needs to be capitalised with the cost of the asset. Accordingly, the AO treated the foreign

Mr Mukund Vallabhdas Thakker, Mumbai vs. Dycit. CC 4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5904/MUM/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavassessment Year : 2008-09 Mr. Mukund Vallabhdas Deputy Commissioner Of Thakker, Income Tax, Ground Floor, Vs. Central Circle-4(2)(1), Persian Apartments, Aayakar Bhavan, 434, Vp Road, M.K. Road, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400058. Pan : Aaapt3952A (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal (Virtually Appeared) For Revenue : Shri Anurag Tripathi Date Of Hearing : 26-11-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-11-2025 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Addl/Jcit(A)-1, Delhi, Dated 27-08-2025, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2008-09, Wherein The Assessee Has Challenged The Sustenance Of Addition Of Rs. 9,73,306/- U/S. 2(22)(E) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 („The Act‟).

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Anurag Tripathi
Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “SMC” BENCH : MUMBAI BEFORE JUSTICE (RETD.) SHRI C.V. BHADANG, PRESIDENT AND SHRI VIKRAM

Amrita Prabhakar Deodhar, Andheri vs. Income Tax Assistant Commissioner, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 5892/MUM/2025[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Vikram Singh Yadavshri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh PurohitFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan (SR DR)
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 194JSection 250Section 40

impugned order was emanated from the order of the Learned Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax- 20(1), Mumbai (in short, ‘Ld.AO’) passed under section 143(3) of the Act, date of order 31/12/2008. 2. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:- “1. The said Legal & Professional fees amounting

Hemlata Paresh Surana, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 19(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 5770/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm Hemlata Paresh Surana I.T.O. Ward 19(1)(1), 4-A, 30-B, Taj Building, A. K. Mumbai Marg, Gowalia Tank, Mumbai Vs. – 400 036. Pan/Gir No. Abeps6199P (Appellant) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri R. M. Jain Respondent By : Shri Sandeep Jumale, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.11.2025 O R D E R Per Narender Kumar Choudhry, J M: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 24.07.2025, Impugned Herein, Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 48, Mumbai (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2018-19. 2. In The Instant Case, The Assessee Has Sold 20,500 Shares Of Ammltd/Apu Marketing/Eject Marketing On A Total Consideration Of Rs. 14,92,810/- On Dated 01.02.2018 Through Online Platform/Bombay Exchange & Therefore Has Earned Long Term Capital Gain Of Rs. 12,87,180/- & Claimed The Same As Exempt U/S. 10(38) Of The Act. Hemlata Paresh Surana

For Appellant: Shri R. M. JainFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Jumale, SR. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT[A]) for Assessment Year 2005-06 in the matter of order passed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) against Respondent. Respondent though served is not present before us. Affidavit

ITO-19(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Ashwinkumar Krishnala Thanawala, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue Department stands dismissed

ITA 5444/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Pushkaraj Bhangepateil, Ld. Sr. D.R
Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

reproduced hereunder: - 3 Mr. Ashwinkmar Krishnala Thanawala …………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 6. The Ld. Commissioner further observed that, the AO was fully aware that the proceedings under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 had been initiated in the name of deceased Assessee and could not be continued, as such after his demise, it was incumbent ... issued any such notice under section 143 (2) on the legal heir(s) and had concluded the reassessment proceedings under section 143 (3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act. 7. The Ld. Commissioner further observed that the Hon’ble Courts in the decisions cited (supra) have held that a notice

Equity Capital Advisors (India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 3(1)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 4584/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhailm/S. Equity Capital Advisors (India) Pvt. Ltd., No.140, Shanti Industrial Estate, S.N. Road, Mulund (West) ............... Appellant Mumbai – 400080 Pan : Aabce2510K V/S Income Tax Officer, Ward – 3(1)(3), 6Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, ……………… Respondent Mumbai - 400020

For Appellant: Shri Sunil PatelFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 194HSection 194ISection 250Section 40

made a TDS default of a sum of Rs. 7,67,47,858/-. The Assessing Officer (“AO”) vide order dated 21.09.2022 passed under section 143(3) read with section 144B of the Act made a disallowance to the extent of 30% amounting to Rs.2,40,86,813/- under section

Manish Madan Rana, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-Central Circle-1(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 4550/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosaina.Ys: 2019-20

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER A.Ys: 2019-20 Manish

Income Tax Officer 19.1.1, Piramal Chamber Lal Baug vs. A J Diam, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed in the above terms

ITA 3845/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhanito-19(1)(1), Mumbai A. J. Diam Room No. 501, Piramal Chamber, Vs. 304, 3Rd Floor, Deccan Vikas Chs Lalbaug, Mumbai-400 012. Ltd. 584/1/584, Vithalbhai Patel Road, Kothachiwadi, Mumbai- 400 004 Pan: Aaofa4830G (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI. RAJ

Agarwal Holdings Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3389/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Girish Agrawalagarwal Holdings Private Ltd. 211, 2Nd Floor Atlanta Arcade, Marol Church Road Marol, Andheri (East) Mumbai - 400059 ............... Appellant Pan: Aauca5094K V/S Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai-1 ……………… Respondent Room No.330, 3Rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai Assessee By : Shri Ashok Bansal Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Ashok BansalFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, CIT-DR
Section 111ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263

consideration, the return filed by the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny for the following reasons through CASS and statutory notices under 3 section 143(3) and section 142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee: - “• Large squared up loans during the year  Large short -term ... Standards Rules, 2015 (Ind-AS)” 5. After considering the submissions of the assessee, the Assessing Officer (“AO”) vide order dated 04.03.2024 passed under section 143(3) read with section 144B of the Act accepted the return of income filed by the assessee without any variation. 6. Subsequently, the learned PCIT

Income Tax Officer-12(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Eleglance Jewellery Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal and the Assessee’s cross- objections stands dismissed

ITA 2268/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

For Appellant: Mr. Dhaval Shah a/w Ms. Tisha BaghFor Respondent: Smt. Usha Gaikwad (Sr. AR)
Section 250

1 IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA 2268/MUM/2025 (A.Y

Shyam Bhandula, Delhi vs. ITO Ward 45(4), Delhi

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6808/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 143(3)

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment

Aruna Setia, Delhi vs. ITO Ward 28(4), Delhi

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6807/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 69A

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment