“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)

Pdk International Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward 8(3), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2393/KOL/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Nov 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.2393/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Pdk International Pvt. Ltd..…………………....…………………....Appellant 8/1, Middleton Row, Kol-71. [Pan: Aabcp5263C] Vs. Ito, Ward-8(2), Kolkata..……………....…..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Amit Agrawal, Adv., Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Smt. Pampa Ray, Jcit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 04, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 12, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Nfac (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 30.09.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Company & Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.15,71,350/-. The Return Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass. During The Assessment Proceedings, The Assessing Officer Noted That The Assessee Had Claimed A Tds Credit Of Rs.50,748/- On Payments Made U/S 194C Of The Act By M/S Rourkela Steel Plant. The Assessing Officer Observed That While The Assessee Claimed Tds In Return Of Income But No Corresponding Income Under The Head ‘Contractual Income’ Had Been Declared. The Assessing Officer Issued A Show-Cause Notice & In Response, The Assessee Explained That They Had Received Rs.6,37,000/- & Rs.19,00,386/- During The F.Y 2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘SMC’ BENCH KOLKATA Before Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member and Shri Sanjay Awasthi, Accountant

Theeta Chowdayya Nagarathna, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 2083/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Sri Ravi Kiran, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Revenue

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

ITA No.2083/Bang/2025 Theeta Chowdayya Nagarathna, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT

Shantilal Jain(HUF), Bangalore vs. ACIT, Circle-2(2)(1), Bangalore

ITA 1489/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Respondent: Shri Subramanian .S, JCIT-DR

Section 250Section 68

assessee furnished copies of VAT returns and sample purchase and sale bills. 7. The Assessing Officer (“AO”), vide order dated 20/12/2019 passed under section 143(3) of the Act, disagreed with the submissions of the Page 5 of 6 ITA No. 1489/Bang/2025 assessee and held that in the year under

Shahjahan Shahalam Shaikh, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 41(1)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 5574/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosaina.Ys: 2018-19

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 5Section 56(2)

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER A.Ys: 2018-19 Shahjahan

Satish Sawarmal Saraf, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-4(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands

ITA 5540/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 133(6)Section 250Section 69A

establishing any nexus between addition made to that of the incriminating material found/seized on the basis of search operation. Moreover, when assessment under section 143(3) of the Act has already been concluded, thus not pending at the time of search proceedings any addition in the absence of incriminating material ... available on the portal which has already been examined by the Revenue Authority and held to be in order while framing assessment under section 143(3) of the Act. 9. In view of what has been discussed above, we are of the considered view that there is no infirmity, illegality

DCIT-2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Central Bank of India, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5521/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeassessment Year : 2016-17 Dcit, Circle-2(1)(1), Central Bank Of India, Room No. 561, 5Th Floor, Mumbai Main Office, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. M.G. Road, Fort, Mumbai-400020. Greater Bombay, Mumbai-400023. Pan : Aaacc2498P (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Nitesh Joshi For Revenue : Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 10-11-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12-11-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr.DR

Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(vii)

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

Nilesh Ishwar Mehta, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-17(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4931/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarnilesh Ishwar Mehta V/S. Deputy Commissioner Of 2301/A, 23Rd Floor, बनाम Income Tax-17(1) Parthenon Building, J.P. Room No. 117, Kautilya Road, Mumbai – 400 053, Bhavan, C-41 To C-43, G-Block, Maharashtra Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai 400051, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aacpm2417P Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Gandhi,ARFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, (Sr.AR)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 56(2)(vii)

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL“B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT

Sol Entertainment Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 11(2)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 4924/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Om Prakash Kant

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

appellant. In this regard, it is reiterated that the present appeal is filed by the appellant against the assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year 2013-14. The appellant filed its return of income on 28.09.2013, declaring a loss ... appellant submitted details and supporting documents through the e-filing portal. After examining the submissions, the Assessing Officer passed the order under section 143(3), assessing loss at Rs. 73,30,037/- by making additions under various heads, including (i) Rs. 12,18,673/- under section

Narendra Rupchand Madhani, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 5(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 4896/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarnarendra Rupchand Madhani V/S. Deputy Commissioner Of 32, Purnima Apartment, 42, बनाम Income Tax, Central Circle – Ridge Road, Walkeshwar, Opp. 5(4), Kautilya Bhavan, Rekha Building, Mumbai– Mumbai – 400051, 400006, Maharashtra Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aavpm5613L Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Prateek Jain,ARFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui (Sr. AR)

Section 143(3)Section 24Section 69A

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL”B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT

S D Bhalerao Constructions Private Limtied, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 3(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes, with the matters restored to the file of the learned CIT(A) for fresh adjudication

ITA 3959/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

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

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 14A

pertaining to assessment under section 144 of the Act, and dated 18/08/2023 for A.Y. 2014-15, pertaining to assessment under section 143(3). Since the issues involved are substantially similar and S.D. Bhalerao Constructions Pvt. Ltd., interconnected, both appeals are being disposed of by this consolidated order. 2. The appeals

S D Bhalerao Constructions Pvt Ltd Project Building No. 58 Jv, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 19(3), Mumbai

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes, with the matters restored to the file of the learned CIT(A) for fresh adjudication

ITA 3958/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

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

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 14A

Vijaya Prakash Nagori, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 32(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 3393/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Om Prakash Kant

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(b)

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT

Dattani Construction, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 42(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for stati...

ITA 2107/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Mr. Prateek JainFor Respondent: 03/11/2025

Section 148

Construction 3 2.1 Subsequently, the assessment was completed under section Subsequently, the assessment was completed under section Subsequently, the assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act on 21st March, 2014, wherein the learned 143(3) of the Act on 21st March, 2014, wherein the learned 143(3

ACIT-6(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Nirjala Teleholdings Ltd, Thane

ITA 1558/MUM/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Nov 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Judicial, Quasi-Judicial, Or Arbitral Authorities. 3. We Have Carefully Perused The Said Order Of The Nclt. Paragraph 40 Thereof Makes It Abundantly Clear That The Application Of The Financial Creditor Under Section 7(5) Of The Code Has Been Admitted & That The Moratorium Stipulated Under Section 14(1) Has Commenced From The Very Date Of That Order. The Relevant Portion Of The Nclt’S Direction Reads As Under:

Section 14(1)Section 143(3)Section 7Section 7(5)

separate impugned orders, both dated 10 December 2024, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, pertaining to the assessments framed under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08. 2. At the threshold of hearing, the learned Departmental

ACIT-6(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Nirjala Teleholdings Limited, Thane

ITA 1557/MUM/2025[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Nov 2025AY 2006-07

Section 14(1)Section 143(3)Section 7Section 7(5)

Anupama Agarwal, Delhi vs. DCIT 61.1, Delhi

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5676/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Bleasstt. Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 54Section 69

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT Asstt

Spectrum Talent Management, Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner Circle 59(1), Delhi

The appeal is allowed partly with consequences to follow as per determination of grounds as above

ITA 4000/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2016-17 Spectrum Talent Management, Vs Acit, B-46, Retreat Apartments, Circle 59(1), 20, Ip Extension, Delhi Delhi – 110 092. Pan: Abmfs3316G (Appellants) (Respondents) Assessee By : Shri A.K. Batra, Ca Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.11.2025 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 24.04.2025 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or In Short Ld. ‘Faa’) In Appeal No.Cit(A), Delhi-19/10265/2018-19 Arising Out Of The Appeal Before It Against The Order Dated 19.12.2018 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’) By The Acit, Circle 59(1), Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao).

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Batra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 44A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES: G : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANUBHAV

Vinod Kumar, Karnal vs. ITO Ward-5, Karnal

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 3660/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2012-13 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Sh. Vinod Kumar, Proprietor Of Vinod Enterprises, Ward-5, R/O- H. No.920, Sector-13, Karnal Karnal, Haryana Pan: Adepk5811G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Rajeev Sachdewa, Ca Department By Sh. Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr

Section 147

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘A’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI

Crown Gaskets Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(1), Delhi, New Delhi

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

ITA 3450/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 Crown Gaskets Private Limited Vs Ito Ward-6(1) Delhi B-488, Meera Bagh Paschim Vihar New Delhi-110063 Pan No. Aafcc2007D (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 132(2)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND

Yogesh Gandhi, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle Intl Tax -1(3)(1), Delhi

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

ITA 2671/DEL/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Nov 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Yogesh Gandhi, Vs. Acit, Circle, C – 2/14, Safdarjung Development Area, International Tax 1(3)(1), New Delhi – 110 021. New Delhi. (Pan : Aaipg4922F) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rishabh Ostwal, Advocate Shri Deepak Ostwal, Ca Revenue By : Shri Vikram Singh Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 21.08.2025 Date Of Order : 12.11.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Delhi - 42 [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 11.03.2025 For The Assessment Year 2023-24. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, Assessee Is An Nri & Also Having Income From Rent & Interest During The Year Under Consideration. The Assessee Had Sold A Property During Fy 2018-19 At Rs.2,97,50,000/- & Declared His Income In Its Return Of Income For Ay 2019-20. During The Fy 2018-

For Appellant: Shri Rishabh Ostwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vikram Singh Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES ‘D’: NEW DELHI. BEFORE SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI YOGESH KUMAR