← 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)

DCIT Central Circle-8(1), Mumbai vs. The Estate Investment Company Private Limited, Mumbai

3012/Mum/2025

ITA 3087/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2025AY 2016-17
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 69A

invalid. b. Commissioner of Income Tax v Laserwords US Inc (2025 175 taxmann.com 920) (Madras) The Assessing Officer passed assessment order under section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) read with section 254 pursuant to the directions of DRP. The direction issued by the DRP under section 144C ... pray that the Order be quashed. 2. Without prejudice to the above, Appellants submit that the assessment Order passed by the AO under section 143(3) / 148 has been issued without DIN and therefore this Order passed by the AO is a nullity in Law and the Appellants pray that

The Estate Investment Company Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -8(1), Mumbai

ITA 3012/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2025AY 2014-15
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 69A

invalid. b. Commissioner of Income Tax v Laserwords US Inc (2025 175 taxmann.com 920) (Madras) The Assessing Officer passed assessment order under section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) read with section 254 pursuant to the directions of DRP. The direction issued by the DRP under section 144C ... pray that the Order be quashed. 2. Without prejudice to the above, Appellants submit that the assessment Order passed by the AO under section 143(3) / 148 has been issued without DIN and therefore this Order passed by the AO is a nullity in Law and the Appellants pray that

Netflix Entertainment Services India LLP, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax- Circle 23(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly

ITA 6857/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2025AY 2021-22
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 234ASection 270ASection 40

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘J’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & MS RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

M/S. Raman and Weil Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 1(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 6266/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Rahul Chaudhary & Smt. Renu Jauhri & Raman & Weil Private Dy. Commissioner Of Limited Income Tax, Circle 1(3)(1) Vs. Office No. 36/37, 3Rd Floor, Mittal 460, M.K. Road, Aayakar Chambers, Opp. Inox Theatre, Bhavan, Mumbai 400020 Nariman Point, Mumbai 400021. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacr5065M (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रतीकीओरसे/ Assessee By: Shri. Dharan Gandhi, Adv. /Revenue By: Shri R. R. Makwana Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri. Dharan Gandhi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana SR. DR
Section 12ASection 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 35A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI. RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SMT. RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT

Raman and Weil Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 1(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 6265/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Rahul Chaudhary & Smt. Renu Jauhri & Raman & Weil Private Dy. Commissioner Of Limited Income Tax, Circle 1(3)(1) Vs. Office No. 36/37, 3Rd Floor, Mittal 460, M.K. Road, Aayakar Chambers, Opp. Inox Theatre, Bhavan, Mumbai 400020 Nariman Point, Mumbai 400021. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacr5065M (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रतीकीओरसे/ Assessee By: Shri. Dharan Gandhi, Adv. /Revenue By: Shri R. R. Makwana Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri. Dharan Gandhi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana SR. DR
Section 12ASection 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 35A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI. RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SMT. RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT

M/S Sapphire Fintech Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT-3(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the

ITA 593/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir JainFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, Sr. AR
Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

total income of INR 77,329. The return filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny, and vide order dated 30/11/2009 passed under section 143(3) of the Act, the scrutiny proceedings were concluded accepting the returned income. Subsequently, on the basis of the information received from the office ... assessee, and there is no income chargeable to tax that has escaped assessment. 6. The AO, vide order dated 11/03/2015, passed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act, disagreed with the submissions of the assessee after taking into consideration the statement of Shri Rajendra Jain recorded

M/S Sapphire Fintech Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT -3(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the

ITA 592/MUM/2023[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2025AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir JainFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, Sr. AR
Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

total income of INR 77,329. The return filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny, and vide order dated 30/11/2009 passed under section 143(3) of the Act, the scrutiny proceedings were concluded accepting the returned income. Subsequently, on the basis of the information received from the office ... assessee, and there is no income chargeable to tax that has escaped assessment. 6. The AO, vide order dated 11/03/2015, passed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act, disagreed with the submissions of the assessee after taking into consideration the statement of Shri Rajendra Jain recorded

Central Bank of India, Mumbai vs. NFAC, CIT(Appeal), Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 2045/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri R A Dhyani, (CIT DR)
Section 115JSection 129Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 52

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “C”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANIKESH

Children Toy Foundation, Mumbai vs. CIT (Exemption), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA 1345/Mum/2022 is dismissed

ITA 1345/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani (CIT-DR)
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 263

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANIKESH

Meenu Gupta, Meerut vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Meerut

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed in the aforesaid manner

ITA 4515/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Sh. Sudhir Kumar & Sh. Manish Agarwalassessment Year- 2022-23 Meenu Gupta Vs. Acit, Central Circle Meerut 214, Madhuban Colony, Baghpat Road Meerut 250002 Uttar Pradesh 250002 Pan No. Acrpg2700J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 65Section 65BSection 69Section 69B

Noida [hereinafter referred to as “Ld. CIT(A)”] vide order dated 08.05.2025 arising out of the order of the Assessing officer under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961 (In short “the Act”) vide dated 16-06-2023 for Assessment year 2022-23. 2. The assessee has raised

Pramila Katiyar Charitable and Educational Welfare Trust, Noida vs. ITO (Exemptions), Ghaziabad

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

ITA 4054/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 13(2)Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

passed by the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi, arising out of the order dated 04.03.2021 passed by the National e-Assessment Centre, Delhi, under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 143(3A) & 143(3B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for Assessment Year

Skylink Construction Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income, Cr Building New Delhi

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

ITA 3410/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Sudhir Kumar & Sh. Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2017-18 Skylink Construction Vs. Dcit Private Limited, B-42, Cr Building, New Delhi Panchsheel Enclave, New Delhi Pan No.Aalcs1929E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(1)Section 44A

National Faceless Appeal Centre (in short “NFAC”) vide order dated 31.03.2025 arising out of the assessment order dated 30-12-2019 under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961, (in short “the Act”)pertaining to A.Y. 2017-18. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds in appeal

Sicpa India Private Limited, Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 22(2), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 330/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal[ Sicpa India Private Limited, Asst. Cit, 308-312, Mercantile House, Circle -22(2), 15 K.G. Marg, Vs. Delhi. Delhi-110001. Pan-Aadcs6121L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Akash Singhal, Ca Department By Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 22/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/10/2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-24, New Delhi [Cit(A), In Short] Dated 28.11.2024 In Appeal No. Nfac/2019-20/10183865 Arising Out Of Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’) Dated 30.09.2022 For Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing & Distribution Of Security Inks. The Return Of Income For The Year Under Appeal Was E-Filed On 15.02.2021 Declaring Total Income At Rs.6,74,74,000/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Taken Up For Scrutiny & The Order Was Passed U/S 143(3) On 30.09.2022 Wherein Disallowance Of Rs.23,09,391/- Was Made On Account Of Dividend Distributions Tax & Educational Cess Claimed By The Assessee As Sicpa India Private Limited Vs. Acit Expenses & Further Disallowance U/S 14A Of Rs.25,56,078/- Was Made & The Total Income Of The Assessee Was Assessed At Rs.7,71,05,940/-.

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234CSection 270A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI

Mitu Mohindru, Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-Intl Tax 2(2)(1), Delhi

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2134/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Mitu Mohindru Vs Acit C/O Ca Vaibhavgoel Circle, International 75 Navyug Market Taxtdaion-2(2)(1) 1St Floor, Ghaziabad Delhi Uttar Pradesh Pan: Aqjpm9070D Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Vaibhav Goel, Ca Revenue By Sh. Saroj Kumar Dubey, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 26/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/10/2025 Order

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 147rSection 69

1 MituMohindru Vs. ACIT IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI (DELHI BENCH ‘D’ NEW DELHI BEFORE S. RIFAUR RAHMAN

Ge Global Parts & Products Gmbh, Switzerland vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle Int Tax 1(3)(1), Delhi

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1932/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ge Global Parts & Products Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Gmbh, Brown Boverit Strasse Income Tax, Circle 8, Baden, Switzerland International Taxation 1(3)(1) Pan: Aagcg3668K Civic Centre, Minto Road, New Delhi

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 285

1 GE Global Parts & Products Vs. ACIT IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI (DELHI BENCH ‘D’ NEW DELHI) BEFORE

Stercon Energy Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-29, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5798/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 153C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘C’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH

Stercon Energy Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle- 29, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5797/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 153C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘C’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH

Stercon Energy Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-29, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5796/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 153C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘C’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH

Coim India Private Limited, Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 4(2), Delhi

Appeal is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 5377/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmancoim India Private Limited, Vs. Dcit, Circle 4 (2), Shop No.4, Ground Floor, Delhi. Rajendra Bhawan, Patel Nagar East, Delhi – 110 008. (Pan : Aabcc4026E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nikhil Agarwal, Advocate Shri Puru, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.10.2025 Date Of Order : 17.10.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Preferred By The Assessees Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 27.09.2024 Passed By The Income Tax Department, Assessment Unit U/S 143(3) Read With Section 144C(13) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act”) For Assessment Year 2021-22 Pursuant To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel U/S 144C(5) Of The Act. 2. At The Time Of Hearing, Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Submitted That Vide Letter Dated 14.10.2025 Which Is Placed On Record, Assessee Seeks To Withdraw

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Dhanesta, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘I’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT and SHRI S

Ramesh Verma, Moradabad vs. ITO, 2(1), Moradabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5124/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalmr. Ramesh Verma, Income Tax Officer, Bhogpur Mithoni, Ward-2(1), Atal Mohalla, Mandi Chowk, Vs. Moradabad. Moradabad-244001 Uttar Pradesh. Pan-Acvpv3651M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Mayank Patawarai, Adv. Shri Akash Ojha, Adv. Department By Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 22/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/10/2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A), In Short] Dated 18.09.2024 In Appeal No. Cit(A), Moradabad/20293/2019-20 Arising Out Of Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’) Dated 14.12.2019 For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Is An Individual & Had Filed His Return Of Income On 30.03.2018 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.4,72,820/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny Under Cass For Examination Of Cash Ramesh Verma Vs. Ito Deposits & Cash Withdrawals In The Bank Accounts. The Ao Has Observed That Assessee Is Maintaining Two Bank Accounts (I) With State Bank Of India & (Ii) With Prathma Bank. As Per The Ao, Total Cash Of Rs.71,12,000/- Were Deposited During The Year Which Were Alleged As Unexplained U/S 69A & Addition Was Made. In Addition To This, Further Addition Was Made On Account Of Other Deposit In Both The Bank Accounts.

Section 143(3)Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI