← 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)

Inder Jaisinghani, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -5(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 974/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora and Shri Pranay Gandhi, CAsFor Respondent: Shri R A Dhyani, CIT DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 244ASection 55(2)(aa)Section 55(2)(ac)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT

Span Creators, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 1, Thane

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 911/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Tarang Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.A Dhyani, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT

Span Creators, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 1, Thane

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 910/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Tarang Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.A Dhyani, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT

ACIT-CC-7(3), Mumbai vs. Swikrutee Finance Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, Appeal filed by the Revenue Department stands dismissed

ITA 610/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryshri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2014-15 Acit-Cc-7(3) Swikrutee Finance Private Room No. 655, Floor 6Th, Limited Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Office No. Ii 289 Emca Vs. Mumbai- 400020 House, S B S Road, Mumbai 400001 Pan: Aaocs2723H (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Vimal Punmiya Shri Anand Mundra Revenue By : Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Ld. Sr.A.R. Date Of Hearing : 29.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 24.06.2025, Impugned Herein, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Center (Nfac)/ Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption) (In Short ‘Ld. Commissioner’) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘Act’) For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. In The Instant Case, The Assessee Is Registered As Non-Banking Financial Company (Nbfc) With Reserve Bank Of India & Engaged In The Financial Requirement Of Emerging Small & Medium Enterprises (Sme) Segment, Including Rendering An Advisory Services Relating To Financial Aspect.

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Ld. Sr.A.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

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

ACIT 16(1), Mumbai vs. Aishwarya Rai Bachchan, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5403/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Smt.Renu Jauhriacit 16(1) Vs. Aishwarya Rai Bachchan Room No. 439, Aaykar Jalsa B-2 Kapole Chs V L Bhavan, Mk Road, Marine Mehta Road Jvpd Scheme Lines, Juhu, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400049. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Adlpr35537P Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Mani JainFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan- Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SMT.RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACIT

Kambar Constructions, Mumbai vs. ITO WD-25(2)(5), Mumbai

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

ITA 5357/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Kambar Constructions Income Tax Officer Ward – A-52, Dakshina Park, N. S. Road No. 25(2)(5), Mumbai. Vs. 10, Juhu Scheme, Mumbai – 400049. Pan/Gir No. Aakfk6879M (Appellant) (Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Neelam JadhavFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, SR DR
Section 250Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM

ACIT, Mumbai vs. K Raheja Corporate Services Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 5350/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM

ACIT, Mumbai vs. K Raheja Corporate Services Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 5349/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, SR DR
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM

Prakash Mahadev Gaikwad, Belapur vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), Delhi

In the result assessee appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5209/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2014-15 Prakash Mahadev Gaikwad Commissioner Of 53, Royal Castle, Plot No. 75, Income-Tax (Appeals) Sector- 19/20 Palm Beach Commissioner Of Income Vs. Road, Belapur, Navi Mumbai Tax Appeal Mumbai 46, Pan: Adqpg0694P Ward 42(3)(1), Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai, Ito 42(3)(1), Mumbai (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Praveen K. Srivastav, Ld. Sr.D.R. Date Of Hearing : 09.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 26.06.2025, Impugned Herein, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Center (Nfac)/ Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short Ld. Cit(A)) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2014-15. 2. Admittedly In The Instant Case, The Ld. Commissioner In The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Assessment Order Dated 27.12.2016 U/S 143(3) Of The Act, Whereby 3 Additions Of Rs. 51,14,040, Rs. 81,94,000/- & 1,44,998/- Were Respectively Made On Account Of Unexplained Investment U/S 69 Of The Act, Unexplained Cash Credit U/S 68 Of The Act & Disallowance On 2 Prakash Mahadev Gaikwad Account Of Interest Income Without Seeking Exemption U/S 80Tt Of The Act, Issued Various Notices To The Assessee, However, The Assessee Failed To Comply With The Same & Therefore In The Constrained Circumstance, The Ld. Commissioner Affirmed The Aforesaid Addition By Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Praveen K. Srivastav, Ld. Sr.D.R
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68Section 69Section 80T

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2014

Ramnikkumar Hirachand Togani, Mumbai vs. ITO 23(3)(6), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5133/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: the Tribunal on the grounds reproduced at Paragraph 2 above.

For Appellant: Shri Ramnikkumar H. ToganiFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri
Section 143(3)Section 249(2)

referred to as ‘the CIT(A)’] whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal against the Assessment Order, dated 30/03/2016, passed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2013-2014. 2. The relevant facts for adjudication of the primary issue raised ... appeal are that the assessment was framed on the Assessee for the Assessment Year 2013-2014, vide Assessment Order, dated 30/03/2016, passed under Section 143(3) of the Act. Vide impugned Order, dated 26/06/2025, the Learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal Assessment Year 2013-2014 preferred by the Assessee against

Shri Chintamani Parshwanath Shwetambar Murtipujak Jain Sangh, Mumbai vs. Exem. Ward 2(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5038/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri J. Kala, CAFor Respondent: Shri Virbhadra Mahajan, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 11(2)(a)Section 11(3)Section 115BSection 12ASection 143(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT

R S Construction, Mumbai vs. Ward 41(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 4918/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt. Renu Jauhri ()

Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SMT. RENU JAUHRI (ACCOUNTANT

Sejal Milan Vora, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer - 19(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 4708/MUM/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Jigar MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Pushkaraj Bhangepatil, Ld. Sr.D.R
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

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

Rohit Sushilkumar Sawhney, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 34 (3) (2), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 4683/MUM/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Anant Pai, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Praveen K. Srivastav, Ld. Sr.D.R
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 48

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2007

Binayak Tex Processors Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 4(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4541/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year : 2018-19 Binayak Tex Processors Ltd., Deputy Commissioner Of 384-M, Income Tax, Dhabolkarwadi, Vs. Circle-4(1)(1), 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Kalbadevi Road, Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400002. Churchgate, Pan : Aaacb1554D Mumbai-400020. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kamlesh Vangule Revenue By : Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui

For Appellant: Shri Kamlesh VanguleFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)

statute does not taken away the assessee‟s right to challenge the action of the AO in terms of section 143(3) of the Act, where the income so determined u/s. 143(1) of the Act has been considered by the AO while determining the assessed income u/s 143(3

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax- CC 3(4), Mumbai vs. Pasha Finance Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4317/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Devendra Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr. DR
Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(ii)Section 36(1)(iii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax- CC 3(4), Mumbai vs. Pasha Finance Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4316/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Devendra Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr. DR
Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(ii)Section 36(1)(iii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT

Mayur Govindbhai Patel, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-24(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, terms of Paragraph 15 above, the present appeal preferred by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4179/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dhaval ShahFor Respondent: Shri Umashankar Prasad
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263

Assessee against the Assessment Order, ITA No.4177,4165&4179/Mum/2025 Assessment Year 2011-2012, 2012-2013 & 2016-2017 dated 30/03/2022, passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 263 read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’]. 3. The Assessee has raised

Mayur Govindbhai Patel, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-24(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, terms of Paragraph 15 above, the present appeal preferred by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4177/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dhaval ShahFor Respondent: Shri Umashankar Prasad
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263

Assessee against the Assessment Order, ITA No.4177,4165&4179/Mum/2025 Assessment Year 2011-2012, 2012-2013 & 2016-2017 dated 30/03/2022, passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 263 read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’]. 3. The Assessee has raised

Mayur Govindbhai Patel, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-24(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, terms of Paragraph 15 above, the present appeal preferred by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4165/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dhaval ShahFor Respondent: Shri Umashankar Prasad
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263

Assessee against the Assessment Order, ITA No.4177,4165&4179/Mum/2025 Assessment Year 2011-2012, 2012-2013 & 2016-2017 dated 30/03/2022, passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 263 read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’]. 3. The Assessee has raised