← 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)

The Sangli Salary Earners Co Op Society Ltd, Sangli vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 3 Sangli, Sangli

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2254/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2254/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2020-21 The Sangli Salary Earners Co V The Income Tax Officer, Op Society Ltd., S. Ward-3, Sangli. 1104 B, Harbhat Road, Main City, Sangli – 416416 Pan: Aaaat0980D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Amit Sudhir Shintre(Virtual) Revenue By Smt. Saumya Pandey Jain-Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing 17/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/11/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2020-21, Dated 27.08.2025 Emanating From Assessment Order U/S.143(3) Read With Section 143(3) R.W.S 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 26.09.2022. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. Deduction U/S 80P(2)(A)(I) Relying On The Decision Of Totgars Co-

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 57Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

NFAC], passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for A.Y.2020-21, dated 27.08.2025 emanating from Assessment Order u/s.143(3) read with section 143(3) r.w.s 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 26.09.2022. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal : “1. Deduction

Jayashree Sanjay Jadhav, Mumbai City vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 42 (2) (3), Mumbai

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed in the said terms

ITA 5660/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2017-18 Ms. Jayashree Sanjay Acit, Circle 42(2)(3), Jadhav, Kautalya Bhavan, Bandra H 11/703, Palm Acres Chs Ltd. Vs. Kurla Complex, Pratiksha Nagar, Sion, Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400022. Mumbai - 400051 Pan: Adgpj9973J (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Anant Pai, Ld. A.R. Revenue By : Shri Vikas Chandra, Ld. Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 17.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.11.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 31.07.2025, Impugned Herein, Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Addl/Jcit (A) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2008-09. 2. Admittedly, The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny For The Following Issues: (I) Cash Deposit In The Bank Account During Demonetization Period From 09.11.2016 To 31.12.2016. (Ii) Transactions Made In Immovable Property & (Iii) Investment Of Rs.1,50,000/- U/S 80C.

For Appellant: Shri Anant Pai, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Vikas Chandra, Ld. Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69ASection 80C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2017

Belle Hospitality, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 41(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 5563/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Belle Hospitality, Ito Ward 41(2)(1), Basement & Ground Floor, Kautilya Bhavan Filix Building Lbs Marg, Vs. Mumbai - 400051 Bhandup West, Mumbai – 400 078 Pan: Aakfb5304J (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Dhaval Shah, Ld. A.R. Revenue By : Shri Praveen K. Srivastav, Ld. Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 17.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.11.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 28.04.2025, Impugned Herein, Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax Ddl/Jcit (A) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2012-13. 2. In This Case, The Ao Vide Order Dated 15.12.2016 U/S 143(3) Of The Act Has Made The Additions Of Rs.15,00,000/- & Rs.60,658/- For Unexplained Cash Credit/Non-Genuine Loans U/S 68 Of The Act & The Interest Paid Respectively, However, Allowed The Set Off Of Rs.10,16,395/- As Claimed By The Assessee. Subsequently, The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened U/S 147 Of The Act By Issuing Notice Dated 23.01.2015 U/S 148 Of The Act, Which Resulted Into Passing The Reassessment Order Dated

For Appellant: Shri Dhaval Shah, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Praveen K. Srivastav, Ld. Sr. D.R
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2012