“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)

Lalita Bharatkumar Jain, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 20(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6078/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Ms. Ridhisha Jain (virtually appeared)For Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan (SR DR)

Section 10(38)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 272A(1)(d)

impugned orders emanated from the orders of the Learned Income-tax Officer, Ward-20(2)(4) passed under section 143(3) of the Act, date of order 28/12/2019 in respect of ITA 6129/Mum/2025; and in respect of ITAs 6077 & 6078/Mum/2025, passed by Assessment Unit, Income-tax Department passed

Lalita Bharatkumar Jain, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 20(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6077/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Ms. Ridhisha Jain (virtually appeared)For Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan (SR DR)

Section 10(38)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 272A(1)(d)

Awadhnarayan Bhagwanta Singh, Mumbai vs. ITO 4(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 6045/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & And Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Prakash JotwaniFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan (SR DR)

Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

from the order of the Learned Income-tax Officer, Ward 22(1)(6), Mumbai (in 2 Awadhnarayan Bhagwanta Singh short, ‘Ld.AO’) passed under section 143(3) of the Act and date of order 10/12/2019. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income

Agrata Real Estate Private Limited, Thane West vs. ACIT, CC-2(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 5820/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm Agarta Real Estate Private Limited Acit, Cc-2(3), Mumbai A-02, Mahavir Darshan Chs Ltd., Shanti Park, Mahavir Darshan Bldg.-X- Vs. 31/32, Mira Road, East, Thane – 401107. Pan/Gir No. Aahca2834J (Appellant) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Neeraj Mangla (Virtually Appear) : Shri Vinod Kumar V, Sr. Dr Respondent By : 20.11.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 27.11.2025 O R D E R Per Narender Kumar Choudhry, J M: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 13.08.2025, 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. 2017-18. 2. In The Instant Case, The Assessee Declared Its Total Income At Rs. ‘Nil’ By Filing Its Return Of Income On Dated 17.03.2018, Which Was Subsequently Selected For Limited Scrutiny Under Cass By Issuing Notice Dated 09.08.2018, U/S. 143(2) Of The Act, For The Following Issues:

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Mangla (Virtually appear)For Respondent: 20.11.2025

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JM Agarta Real Estate Private Limited

ACIT 14(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5722/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Us.

Section 143(3)Section 263

learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for the Assessment Year 2015–16, which in turn arises from the assessment framed under section 143(3) read with section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The impugned assessment order has been framed pursuant to the directions issued by the learned Principal ... appeal. It was submitted that the very revision order under section 263 dated 30/03/2021, on the basis of which the subsequent assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 263 was framed, has already been quashed by the Tribunal vide its order dated 07/01/2025 in ITA No. 2277/Mum/2021. A certified copy

Savita Rameshchandra Mehta, Mumbai vs. Ward 41(1)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 5705/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm Savita Rameshchandra Mehta Ward 41(1)(4), Mumbai Flat No. 18, Hit Niketan Co-Op. Hsg. Soc. Sps Road, Kokan Nagar, Vs. Bhandup West, Mumbai – 400078. Pan/Gir No. Aahpm3210B (Appellant) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri R. L. Rathi Respondent By : Shri Praveen K. Srivastav, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.11.2025 O R D E R Per Narender Kumar Choudhry, J M:

For Appellant: Shri R. L. RathiFor Respondent: Shri Praveen K. Srivastav, SR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JM Savita Rameshchandra Mehta Ward 41

Purav Mahendra Mehta, Mumbai vs. Circle 24(1), Mumbai

ITA 5539/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanassessment Year : 2015-16 Purav Mahendra Mehta, Circle-24(1), 501/502, Piramal Chamber, Samrath Prasad Vs. Mumbai-400012. Lokhandwala Circle, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400053. Pan : Aalpm3127B (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Rajesh S. Shah For Revenue : Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 18-11-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27-11-2025 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 Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [„Ld.Cit(A)‟], Dated 08-09-2024, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16. 2. Briefly Stated, Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessment In This Case Was Completed U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 („The Act‟), Vide Order Dt. 21-12-2017, Wherein The Ao Has Brought To Tax Capital Gains Amounting To Rs. 80,76,511/- In Respect Of Three Properties Alleged To Have 2 Been Sold By The Assessee During The Financial Year Relevant To The Impugned Assessment Year. The Assessee Carried The Matter In Appeal Before The Ld.Cit(A). The Ld.Cit(A) Has Confirmed The Findings Of The Ao & Against The Said Order, The Assessee Is In Appeal Before Us.

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh S. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “C” BENCH : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAJ

Kshipra Enterproises, Mumbai vs. ITO 23(2)(6), Mumbai

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

ITA 4717/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154Section 154(3)Section 154(7)Section 250Section 40

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.4717/Mum/2025 A.Y: 2009

Kae Capital Fund, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 25(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3752/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhailkae Capital Fund, 74Ab, Jolly Maker Chambers Ii, Vinay Shah Marg, Mumbai – 400021 ............... Appellant Pan : Aabtk9875E V/S Income Tax Officer, Ward – 25(1)(1)., ……………… Respondent Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Mumbai

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr.DR

Section 10Section 10(35)Section 115USection 143(1)Section 154Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

ACIT Central Circle 7 (1), Mumbai vs. Lloyds Metals and Energy Limited, Mumbai

In the result, for all the

ITA 3094/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Section 143(3)Section 145Section 153C

Limited and Lloyds Enterprises Limited, for Assessment Years 2013– 14 to 2019-20. The assessments in all these years have been framed under Section 143(3) read with Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, pursuant to search and seizure action in a connected group case, and the impugned

ACIT Central Circle 7 (1), Mumbai vs. Lloyds Metals and Energy Limited, Mumbai

ITA 3080/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRIISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 145Section 153C

Limited and Lloyds Enterprises Limited, for Assessment Years 2013– 14 to 2019–20. The assessments in all these years have been framed under section 143(3) read with section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, pursuant to search and seizure action in a connected group case, and the impugned

ACIT Central Circle 7 (1), Mumbai vs. Lloyds Metals and Energy Limited, Mumbai

ITA 3079/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRESH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 145Section 153C

ACIT Central Circle 7 (1), Mumbai vs. Lloyds Metals and Energy Limited, Mumbai

In the result, for all the

ITA 3078/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Section 143(3)Section 145Section 153C

Limited and Lloyds Enterprises Limited, for Assessment Years 2013– 14 to 2019-20. The assessments in all these years have been framed under section 143(3) read with section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, pursuant to search and seizure action in a connected group case, and the impugned

ACIT Central Circle 7 (1), Mumbai vs. Lloyds Metals and Energy Limited, Mumbai

ITA 3077/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 145Section 153C

ACIT Central Circle 7 (1), Mumbai vs. Lloyds Metals and Energy Limited, Mumbai

In the result, for all the

ITA 3076/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Section 143(3)Section 145Section 153C

Limited and Lloyds Enterprises Limited, for Assessment Years 2013- 14 to 2019-20. The assessments in all these years have been framed under section 143(3) read with section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, pursuant to search and seizure action in a connected group case, and the impugned

ACIT Central Circle 7 (1), Mumbai vs. Lloyds Metals and Energy Limited, Mumbai

In the result, for all the

ITA 3075/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Section 143(3)Section 145Section 153C

Limited and Lloyds Enterprises Limited, for Assessment Years 2013–14 to 2019-20. The assessments in all these years have been framed under section 143(3) read with section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, pursuant to search and seizure action in a connected group case, and the impugned

ACIT Central Circle 7 (1), Mumbai vs. Lloyds Enterprises Limited, Mumbai

In the result, for all the

ITA 3074/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Section 143(3)Section 145Section 153C

ACIT Central Circle 7 (1), Mumbai vs. Lloyds Enterprises Limited, Mumbai

In the result, for all the

ITA 3073/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Section 143(3)Section 145Section 153C

ACIT Central Circle 7 (1), Mumbai vs. Lloyds Enterprises Limited, Mumbai

In the result, for all the

ITA 3072/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Section 143(3)Section 145Section 153C

Limited and Lloyds Enterprises Limited, for Assessment Years 2013–14 to 2019-20. The assessments in all these years have been framed under section 143(3) read with section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, pursuant to search and seizure action in a connected group case, and the impugned

ACIT Central Circle 7 (1), Mumbai vs. Lloyds Enterprises Limited, Mumbai

ITA 3070/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 145Section 153C