← 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)

Leo Bhaginath, Malaparamba, Kozhikode vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Kozhikode

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

ITA 626/COCH/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin10 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Years: 2016-17 Leo Bhagianath .......... Appellant 34/290, Malaparamba, Kozhikode 673009 [Pan: Adtpl7403Q] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Kozhikode .......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Anand Kumar, V.K, Advocate Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 28.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.11.2025 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 09.07.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is An Individual Deriving Income As An Advocate. The Return Of Income For Ay 2017- 18 Was Filed On 21.10.2017 Declaring Income Of Rs. 5,50,000/-. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(2), Kozhikode (Hereinafter Called "The Ao") Vide Order Dated 04.12.2019 Passed U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) At A Total Income Of Rs. 42,72,800/-. While Doing So, The Ao Brought To Tax The Credits In The Bank

For Appellant: Shri Anand Kumar, V.K, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 44A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM Assessment Years: 2016-17 Leo Bhagianath

Rico Auto Industries Limited, Ludhiana vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Ludhiana

The appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 703/CHANDI/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.702/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.703/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) M/S Rico Auto Industries Ltd. Pr. Cit-1 बनाम/ B-26, Focal Point Aaykar Bhawan, Rishi Nagar Vs. Ludhiana (Punjab)-141010 Ludhiana (Punjab) - 141001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacr-8724-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Kusum Bansal (Cit) (Virtual) – Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07-10-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10/11/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. In These Twin Appeals, The Assessee Assails Proposed Revision Of The Assessment Order By Revisionary Authority U/S 263 For Assessment Years (Ay) 2020-21 & 2021-22. Facts Are Stated To Be Identical In Both The Years. First, We Take Up Appeal For Ay 2020-21 Wherein The Assessee Challenges Invocation Of Revisionary Jurisdiction U/S 263 By Ld. Pr.

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT) (Virtual) – Ld. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 35

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, CHANDIGARH HYBRID HEARING BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT

Rico Auto Industries Limited, Ludhiana vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Ludhiana

The appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 702/CHANDI/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.702/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.703/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) M/S Rico Auto Industries Ltd. Pr. Cit-1 बनाम/ B-26, Focal Point Aaykar Bhawan, Rishi Nagar Vs. Ludhiana (Punjab)-141010 Ludhiana (Punjab) - 141001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacr-8724-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Kusum Bansal (Cit) (Virtual) – Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07-10-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10/11/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. In These Twin Appeals, The Assessee Assails Proposed Revision Of The Assessment Order By Revisionary Authority U/S 263 For Assessment Years (Ay) 2020-21 & 2021-22. Facts Are Stated To Be Identical In Both The Years. First, We Take Up Appeal For Ay 2020-21 Wherein The Assessee Challenges Invocation Of Revisionary Jurisdiction U/S 263 By Ld. Pr.

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT) (Virtual) – Ld. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 35

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, CHANDIGARH HYBRID HEARING BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Ludhiana vs. Manu Gupta, Dhuri

The appeal stand dismissed

ITA 202/CHANDI/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.201/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) Dcit Shri Rohit Gupta बनाम/ Central Circle-1 C/O Gupta Textile Trading Co. Vs. Ludhiana Old Anaj Mandi, Dhuri, Punjab-148024 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Acapg-4615-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.202/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) Dcit Shri Manu Gupta बनाम/ Central Circle-1 C/O Gupta Textile Trading Co. Vs. Ludhiana Old Anaj Mandi, Dhuri, Punjab-148024 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Acapg-4616-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Abhishek Pal Garg (Cit) -Ld. Dr (Virtual) सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28-10-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10/11/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. The Facts In Captioned Twin Appeals For Assessment Year (Ay) 2022-23 Are Admittedly Identical. First, We Take Up Revenue’S Appeal Ita No. 201/Chandi/2025 Which Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhishek Pal Garg (CIT) -Ld. DR (Virtual)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 69B

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, CHANDIGARH HYBRID HEARING BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Ludhiana vs. Rohit Gupta, Dhuri

The appeal stand dismissed

ITA 201/CHANDI/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.201/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) Dcit Shri Rohit Gupta बनाम/ Central Circle-1 C/O Gupta Textile Trading Co. Vs. Ludhiana Old Anaj Mandi, Dhuri, Punjab-148024 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Acapg-4615-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.202/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) Dcit Shri Manu Gupta बनाम/ Central Circle-1 C/O Gupta Textile Trading Co. Vs. Ludhiana Old Anaj Mandi, Dhuri, Punjab-148024 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Acapg-4616-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Abhishek Pal Garg (Cit) -Ld. Dr (Virtual) सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28-10-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10/11/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. The Facts In Captioned Twin Appeals For Assessment Year (Ay) 2022-23 Are Admittedly Identical. First, We Take Up Revenue’S Appeal Ita No. 201/Chandi/2025 Which Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhishek Pal Garg (CIT) -Ld. DR (Virtual)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 69B

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, CHANDIGARH HYBRID HEARING BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT

Sab Developers Private Limited, Chandigarh vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(1), Chandigarh

ITA 1071/CHANDI/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 731/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S Sab Developers Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer Sco 49-50, Madhya Marg Ward 5(1), बनाम/ Vs. Sector-26, Chandigarh-160019 Aaykar Bhawan, R.No.619 Sector 17E, Chandigarh-160017 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aakcs-6537-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By Shri Ashwani Kumar (Ca), Shri Aditya Kumar : (Ca) & Ms. Deepali Aggarwal (Ca) - Ld. Ars ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15-10-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10/11/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2011-12 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac [Cit(A)] Dated 08-07-2025 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Act On 20-12-2016. The Sole Issue That Fall For Our Consideration Is Addition Of Rs.129.11 Lacs As Made By Ld. Ao Invoking The Provisions Of Sec.56(2)(Viia).

For Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 113Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 159Section 56(2)(viia)

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, CHANDIGARH HYBRID HEARING BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT