← 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)

M/S Peringalam Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd, Kannur vs. ITO, Ward 2, Kannur

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

ITA 787/COCH/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2018-19 Peringalam Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. .......... Appellant Mukkilpeedika, Pullukkara, Kannur 670672 [Pan: Aabap0027A] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Wd-2, Kannur .......... Respondent Assessee By: ------- None ------- Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 06.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.11.2025 O R D E R This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 12.09.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is A Co-Operative Society Registered Under The Kerala State Co-Operative Societies Act, 1969. It Is Engaged In The Business Of Accepting Deposits From Members & Providing Credit Facilities To Members. The Appellant Filed Return Of Income For Ay 2018-19 On 05.10.2018 Declaring Nil Income After Claiming Deduction U/S. 80P(2)(A)(I) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Of Rs. 10,70,510/-. Against The Said Return Of 2 Peringalam Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The National E- Assessment Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter Called "The Ao") Vide Order Dated 20.04.2021 Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144B Of The Act At Total Income Of Rs. 10,70,510/-. While Doing So, The Ao Had Disallowed The Claim For Deduction U/S. 80P(2)(A)(I) Of Rs. 10,70,510/- In Respect Of Interest Income Received From Banks.

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 63Section 64Section 80P(2)(a)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM Assessment Year: 2018-19 Peringalam Service

Korom Service Co-Operative Bank Limited, Payyannur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4, Kannur

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

ITA 752/COCH/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Nov 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2010-11 Korom Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. .......... Appellant Kanayi P.O., Payyannur, Kannur 670611 [Pan: Aaaak6741R] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4, Kannur .......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri P.J. Jacob, Ca Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 06.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.11.2025 O R D E R This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 20.08.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2010-11. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is A Co-Operative Society Registered Under The Kerala State Co-Operative Societies Act, 1969. It Is Engaged In The Business Of Accepting Deposits From Members & Providing Credit Facilities To Members. The Appellant Had Not Filed The Return Of Income For Ay 2010-11 Under The Provisions Of Section 139 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act). Therefore, The Ao Issued A Notice U/S. 148 Of The Act On 30.03.2015. 2 Korom Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. In Response To The Notice U/S. 148, The Appellant Filed The Return Of Income On 19.05.2015 Declaring Nil Income After Claiming Deduction U/S. 80P Of The Act Of Rs. 4,878,360/-. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The Income Tax Officer, Ward 4, Kannur Vide Order Dated 15.02.2016 Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Act At Total Income Of Rs. 4,87,260/-. While Doing So, The Ao Denied The Claim Of Deduction U/S. 80P Of Rs. 4,878,360/-.

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Jacob, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 148Section 80P

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM Assessment Year: 2010-11 Korom Service

Lucknow Educational and Social Welfare Society, Lucknow vs. Assessment Unit, NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 314/LKW/2025[2020-21]Status: FixedITAT Lucknow20 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2012-13 Shri Brahma Prakash Singh, Vs. Principal Commissioner Of 94, Vaishali Enclave, Sector-9, Indira Income Tax-2, Lucknow Nagar, Lucknow Pan: Ajmps4451L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Dharmendra Kumar, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.11.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pcit-2, Lucknow Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act On 14.03.2018. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: - “1. That Revision Proceeding Initiated U/S 263 Of Income-Tax Act, 1961 By Learned Pr. Cit-2. Lucknow Is Illegal & Without Jurisdiction. 2. That Since Assessment Order Passed By The Ao Was Not Erroneous In So Far As It Is Prejudicial To The Interests Of The Revenue, Hence Revision Order Passed By Ld. Pr. Cit-2, Lucknow Is Illegal & Without Jurisdiction. 3. That Ld.Ao Had Examined The Issue & After Being Satisfied By The Documentary Evidences & Explanations Furnished By Appellant, Passed Assessment Order, Hence Revision Order, Cancelling The Assessment Order Is Illegal & Without Jurisdiction. 4. That Where An Order Passed By Ao Is Subject To An Appeal That Had Been Filed, Then Commissioner Cannot Invoke Power Under Section 263 In Such Matters, Which Are Agitated In Such Appeal. Since Issue Under Appeal Before Commissioner (Appeals) & Revision Order Passed Under Section 263 Is Same, Hence, Revision Order Passed By Commissioner Is Illegal & Without Jurisdiction. 5. That The Appellant Seeks Permission To Modify And/Or Add Any Other Ground Or Grounds Of Appeal As The Circumstances Of The Case Might Require Or Justify.”

For Appellant: Sh. Dharmendra Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, CIT DR
Section 133(6)Section 148Section 263

3. The ld. PCIT(1), Lucknow called for and examined the assessment records and records in his order that the order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 was erroneous in so far as it was prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. The ld. PCIT noted that during the year

M/S Bajrang Lal Jindal, Kanpur vs. Astt. Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 373/LKW/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow20 Nov 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2008-09 M/S Bajrang Lal Jindal, 140, Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Anandpuri, Kanpur, U.P. Tax-I, Kanpur Pan: Aanpj5660J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Amit Kumar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.11.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)- Kanpur, Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 1,46,11,400/- Made To The Returned Income Of The Assessee As Unexplained Cash Credits By The Assessing Officer In His Order Dated 31.03.2016 For The Assessment Year 2008-09. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: - “1. That The Ld. Cit (A) I, Kanpur Has Erred In Confirming Addition Of Rs. 14611400.00 To The Returned Income Of The Assessee As Unexplained Cash Credits. 2. That The Reasons Recorded For Initiation Of Proceedings U/S 147 By Issue Of Notice U/S 148 Were Based On Improper Premise & Accordingly No Legal & Factual Lengs To Stand & Acordingly All Subsequent Proceedings Are Bad In Law. 3. That The Observation Of The Ld. Cit (A) I, Kanpur Confirming View Of Ld. A O That M/S. Maa Devasar Commodity Is Inexistant Is Factually Incorrect. 4. That Ld. Cit (A) I, Kanpur Has Erred In Not Appreciating The Fact That When The Beneficiary Of The Funds Are Not The Assessee, There Could Be No Addition In His Hands.

For Appellant: Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Kumar, DR
Section 147Section 148Section 68

copy of the assessment order dated 8.12.2006 passed by the ACIT, Central Circle-3, Kanpur for the A.Y. 2004-05 under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, wherein in similar circumstances, the ld. AO had accepted the fact of the assessee’s business of being a sub-broker ... behalf of clients as a sub- broker. We observe that the Department has accepted his nature of business in the earlier assessment under section 143(3) for the assessment year 2004-05 and the fact of him being a commission agent, despite the fact that the assessee had not maintained

Ronak Gupta, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle -3(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 965/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.965/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Shri Ronak Gupta Vs. Asstt. Cit Hyderabad Circle 3(1) Pan:Aiapg3319G Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Adv. Siddharth Toshnival राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Ranjan Agarwala, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 17/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 21/11/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Shri Ronak Gupta (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Hyderabad (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 30.03.2025 For The A.Y 2016-17. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Adv. Siddharth ToshnivalFor Respondent: : Shri Ranjan Agarwala, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 153A

therefore the case of the assessee was “centralized”. Assessment was thereafter framed by the Learned Assessing Officer (“Ld. AO”) on 24.04.2021 under section 143(3) read with section 153A of the Act determining total income of the assessee at Rs.39,89,130/-. Later, the case of the assessee was reopened