← 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)

P.P.Unneenkutty, Palakkad vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Thrissur

In the result, appeals ITA No

ITA 587/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Venugopal M.V., CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 153C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JM ITA

P.P. Unneenkutty, Palakkad vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Thrissur

In the result, appeals ITA No

ITA 586/COCH/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Venugopal M.V., CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 153C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JM ITA

P.P.Unneenkutty, Thrissur vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Thrissur

In the result, appeals ITA No

ITA 585/COCH/2025[2015-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Oct 2025AY 2015-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Venugopal M.V., CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 153C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JM ITA

P.P.Unneenkutty, Thrissur vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Thrissur

In the result, appeals ITA No

ITA 584/COCH/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Venugopal M.V., CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 153C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JM ITA

P.P. Unneenkutty, Palakkad vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Thrissur

In the result, appeals ITA No

ITA 583/COCH/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Venugopal M.V., CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 153C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JM ITA

ACIT, CC-2, Kanpur vs. Vaibhav Edible Private Limited, Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 444/LKW/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow29 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra**

For Appellant: Shri<br>Akshay Gupta, C.AFor Respondent: Shri<br>R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 68

![](_page_0_Picture_0.jpeg) ## **IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH "A" , LUCKNOW** ## **BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI ANADEE

Janta Land Promoters Pvt Ltd, Mohali vs. The Prinicipal Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandigarh-1, Chandigarh

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 618/CHANDI/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh29 Oct 2025AY 2020-2021
For Appellant: Shri Pankaj Bhalla, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 194Section 263Section 68

said conclusions. A bare and careful perusal of the assessment order of Ld. AO speaks for itself that within the parameter of Section 143(3) he has passed the assessment order dt. 12/06/2020 as requisite notice under section 143(2) of the Act dt. 22/09/2019 was issued to the assessee

Bhupinder Singh Sidhu(HUF), Mohali vs. ITO, Ward 4(1), Chandigarh

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1024/CHANDI/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh29 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1024/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21 Bhupinder Singh Sidhu Huf, The Ito, बनाम House No. 1114, Sector 69, Ward 4(1) Mohali Chandigarh Vs. Punjab160069 "थायी लेखा सं./ Pan No: Aaghb9562C अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. M.R. Sharma, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Sh. Vivek Vardhan, Add. Cit Dr, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 15.10.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 29.10.2025 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, Am: Appeal In This Case Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 4.7.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For A.Y. 2020-21. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:

For Appellant: Sh. M.R. Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan, Add. CIT DR, Sr.DR
Section 143

other source of income. The returns filed by the appellant has been accepted both under section 143(1) and also under section 143(3) of the income tax Act. Copies of the returns filed for the assessment year 2015-2016 onwards has been placed in the paper book. A copy

Kalpanaben Vadilal Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 928/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Oct 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Jaimin Shah, AR
Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 1ISection 210Section 234ASection 250Section 270ASection 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE: SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT

Volark Leasing Ifsc Pvt. Ltd, Gujarat vs. ACIT/DCIT, Circle, Gandhinagar, Gujarat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 357/AHD/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Oct 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Smt. Annapurna Gupta

For Appellant: Shri Pancham Sethi, ARFor Respondent: Date of Hearing
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 234BSection 250Section 80Section 80JSection 80L

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ACIT, Anand Circle, Anand vs. Narendrakumar Hansrajbhai Patel, Kheda

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

ITA 834/AHD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.834/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2021-22 The Acit Narendrakumar Hansrajbhai बनाम/ Dy./Asst.Commissioner Of Patel V/S. Income Tax (Anand Circle) I C/O. Mahakali Saw Mill Anand – 388 001 Mansarovar Marker Kamla Kamia, Kheda – 387 320 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Cmmpp 6784 N (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mishal Mehta, Ca Revenue By : Shri Alpesh Parmar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/10/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Siddhartha Nautiyal, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 27/02/2024 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2021-2022. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. Whether, On Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld.Cit(A) Is Justified In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 10,64,04,151/-Made U/S 69C Of The Act Without Appreciating The Fact The Assessee Failed To Substantiate The Expenditure Claimed With Supporting Evidences? Asst.Cit Vs. Narendrakumar Hansrajbhai Patel Asst. Year : 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Mishal Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69C

under section 69C of the Act and added ₹10,64,04,151/- to the total income of the assessee, completing the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the addition, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Before

Unimed Technologies Limited, Halol vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, the Departmental appeal is dismissed for AY 2017-18

ITA 1425/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT-DR &
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250Section 263

under section 115JB of the Act. The case was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS, and assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act, computing the total income at Rs. 27,23,20,040/-. Subsequently, the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT), Vadodara-1, examined the records ... facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the assessment order passed by the Assessment Unit under section 143(3) read with section 263 r.ws. 1448 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has been framed with a prejudiced mindset and needs to be quashed in toto

Assistant Commissioner of Incometax, Race Course, Vadodara vs. Unimed Technologies Limited, Halol Panchmahal

In the result, the Departmental appeal is dismissed for AY 2017-18

ITA 1423/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT-DR &
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250Section 263

under section 115JB of the Act. The case was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS, and assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act, computing the total income at Rs. 27,23,20,040/-. Subsequently, the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT), Vadodara-1, examined the records ... facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the assessment order passed by the Assessment Unit under section 143(3) read with section 263 r.ws. 1448 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has been framed with a prejudiced mindset and needs to be quashed in toto

Vidya Vikas Pratishtan, Solapur vs. DCIT, Exemption Circle, Pune

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

ITA 902/PUN/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.902/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2022-23 Vidya Vikas Pratishtan, Vs. Assessment Unit, 72/2B, Pratap Nagar, Income Tax Department. Soregaon, Solapur- 413004. Pan : Aaatv8537F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Piyush Bafna Revenue By : Shri Amit Bobde Date Of Hearing : 18.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.10.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19.12.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2022-23. 2. There Is Delay In Filing Of The Present Appeal. We Are Satisfied With The Reasons Mentioned In The Application For Condonation Of Delay Duly Supported By An Affidavit That The Applicant Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause For Not Filing The Appeal Within The Prescribed Time Limit. After Hearing Ld. Dr, We Condone The Delay & Proceed To Adjudicate The Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Piyush BafnaFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 69A

facts and in the circumstances of the case and without prejudice to any other grounds, the assessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act is bad in law, as it is based entirely on best judgment without adequate opportunity of hearing, and in violation of principles

Vikas Ratanlal Jain, Aurangabad vs. CIT(A), Aurangabad

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

ITA 648/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.648/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Vikas Ratanlal Jain, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1), Plot No.32, Station Road, Aurangabad. Vedant Nagar, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, Aurangabad- 431005. Pan : Afapj5847B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nandkishor S. Daga & Shri Nitesh N. Daga Revenue By : Shri Shashank Ojha Date Of Hearing : 18.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.10.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 15.01.2025 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “01. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Ctt(A) Along With The Learned Ao Has Erred In Contending That Provisions Of S. 56(2)(Vii)(B) Is Applicable To All The Immovable Properties Even If Such Land Is Considered As Stock In Trade. As Mentioned In The Explanation To The Aforesaid Section, Property Means The ‘Capital Asset’ Of The Assessee & Hence If Land Is Considered As Stock In Trade, Provisions Of Such 2 Section Are Not Applicable To Such Purchase. Reliance Is Placed On The Various Judicial Precedents Wherein It Has Been Held That The Provisions Of S. 56(2)(Vii)(B) Are Not Applicable To Stock In Trade But Is Applicable Only To Capital Assets:  Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. Ashok Agarwal (Huf)

For Appellant: Shri Nandkishor S. Daga &For Respondent: Shri Shashank Ojha
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(vii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

Yetchina Srinivas, Bilaspur vs. DCIT, Circle, 1(1), Pune

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

ITA 1904/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

For Appellant: Shri Sachin KumarFor Respondent: Shri Ajitesh Meena
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 8Section 80CSection 8O

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1904/PUN/2025

Shri Ganesh Nagari Sahakar Patsanstha M. Chiplun Ta. Chiplun, Ratnagiri vs. Income Tax Officer, Ratnagiri

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

ITA 1743/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Ajitesh Meena
Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1743/PUN/2025

Ravi Yantriki Udyog Private Limited, Pune vs. ITO Ward (5)(4), Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1588/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Department byFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 194C

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “बी” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA

Satish Vishnu Thombare, Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Ahmednagar vs. Varsha Prafulla Zende, Ahmednagar

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1656/PUN/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Oct 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1656/Pun/2024 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Satish Vishnu Thombare, Varsha Prafulla Zende, Income Tax Officer, Prop Of Bleach Chem Enterprises, Ward-1, Ahmednagar Vs. Industrial Estate, Shrirampur, Maharashtra-413709 Pan : Aabpz2541C अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Miss Shivani Shah (Virtual) Department By : Shri Akhilesh Srivastva Date Of Hearing : 06-08-2025 Date Of 29-10-2025 Pronouncement : आदेश / Order

For Appellant: Miss Shivani Shah (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastva
Section 132(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68

detailed consideration by the Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings. However, the AO rejected the assessee's objections and thereafter passed order under section 143(3) restricting the deduction under section 80HHC to Rs. 3.98 crores out of Rs. 5 crores claimed. After considering the facts of the case

Guru Prasad Sanghi, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-8(1), Hyderabad

ITA 1346/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1346/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Guru Prasad Sanghi, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward-8(1), Hyderabad. Pan: Agqps1700F

For Appellant: Sri S K Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri Gurpreet Singh, Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69A

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘A’ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri Manjunatha