← 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)

Diwantham Tollway Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -6, Mubmai

In the result, the grounds of appeal

ITA 3711/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Prabhash Shankar(Physical Hearing) Diwantham Tollway Private Limited Pcit – 6, Mumbai Unit No. 603B, 6Th Floor, Godrej Bkkc, Room No. 501, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Vs Plot No. C-68, G Block, Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Road, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400020. Mumbai – 400051. [Pan: Aagcd6193G] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 254(1)Section 263Section 32

circumstances of the case and in law, the learned PCIT has erred in holding that the order dated 29 September 2022 passed under section 143(3) of the Act read with section 144B of the Act (Order) by the Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department (learned AO) was erroneous ... business losses. The assessing officer referred all the issue in assessment order and accepted the returned income vide assessment order passed under section 143(3)rws 144B dated 29.09.2022. The assessment order was revised by ld. PCIT by invoking his jurisdiction under section 263. The ld. PCIT in para

Shailesh Hatmal Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO-19(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3464/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain

Section 143(3)Section 250

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 3464/Mum/2025 Assessment

DCIT, Central Circle-1(3), Mumbai vs. Amardeep Constructions, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No

ITA 3202/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri. Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri. Anikesh Banerjeedcit, Central Circle -1(3), Mumbai Amardeep Constructions Room No. 903, 9Th Floor, Pratishtha 7/08, Patidar Complex, Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai Kannamwar Nagar No. 2, Near 400020 Vikas High School Vikhroli East, Mumbai 400083 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaufa3513A (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्ााररतीकीओरसे/ Assessee By: Shri. J.P. Bairagra& Ms. Rupa Nanda /Revenue By: Shri. Surendra Mohan (Sr. Dr)

For Appellant: Shri. J.P. Bairagra& Ms. Rupa NandaFor Respondent: Shri. Surendra Mohan (SR. DR)
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 250Section 43C

following project completion method and the same is accepted in the AY 2017-18. Also, copy of the Assessment Order passed under section 143(3) annexed in APB page no. 167 to 190.In the case of the Builder, the assessee has a choice to follow either project completion method

Balajee Infratech & Constructions Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 4(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2261/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

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

Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 37(1)

Learned Addl./Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bhubaneswar, pertaining to the assessment year 2012–13, arising out of the assessment framed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2 Balajee Infratech & Constructions Pvt. Ltd., 2. In this appeal, the assessee has assailed ... under section 147, contending that the reassessment was founded merely on a change of opinion, the original assessment having already been completed under section 143(3). 3. The relevant facts of the case are that the assessee company is engaged in the business of mining, quarrying, stone crushing and breaking

Sadhana Annasaheb Sonwane, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1636/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year:2013-14 Sadhana Annasabeh Sonwane Vs Ito Ward 29(3)(2), Mumbai 502/B, Sai Regency, Bhoir Nagar, Vashi Railway Station, Vidyalaya Marg, Mulund (E), 3X7X+Gqp, 3Rd & 4Th Floor, Mumbai 400081 6Th Tower, Complex, Vashi, Navi Mumbai 400703 (Pan: Aqsps7089R) Appellant Respondent Present For: Appellant By : Shri Sanjeev Brahme, Ca Respondent By : Shri. Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.10.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Vide Order No. Itba/Nfca/S/250/2024-25/1072025693(1), Dated 09.01.2025 Passed Against The Assessment Order By Ito-W-29(3)(2) U/S.143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 29.03.2016 For Ay 2013-14. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: “(I) The Cit(A) Of National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Has Erred In Confirming The Order Of Assessing Officer. (Ii) The Cit(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Has Erred In Upholding The Decision Of The Assessing Officer, Thereby Confirming The Denial Of The Benefit Under Section 54F.

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Brahme, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 54FSection 54F(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax - 7(1)(1), Mumbai, Maharashtra vs. Master Chain Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai, Maharashtra

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

ITA 5397/MUM/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor a/w Ms. SoumyaFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik (SR DR)
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANIKESH

Tata Education Trust, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax -17(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 4728/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyatata Education Trust, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax-17(3) Bombay House, 24, Homi Mody Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. Street, Fort, Mumbai-400 051 Mumbai-400001 (Appellant) : (Respondent) Pan No. Aaatt 9835A

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala a/w ShriFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra, CIT DR
Section 10(34)Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)(d)Section 143(3)Section 154

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA

Ratan Bhaubali Bhalwankar, Mumbai vs. ACIT-16(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1808/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarmr. Ratan Bahubali V/S. Assistant Commissioner Of Bhalwankar बनाम Income Tax – 16(3), C/O – 2Nd Floor, Gita Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai - Building, Sion Circle, 400021, Maharashtra Mumbai - 400 022, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aacpb7285Q Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Margav Shukla, Adv and Shubham ShahFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kasuri, (Sr. AR)
Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Devang Bhupendra Shah, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 32(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4218/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankardevang Bhupendra Shah, V/S. Income Tax Officer, Ward – B/9, Neminath Apt., बनाम 32(1)(4), Kautilya Bhavan, Shimpoli Road, Borivali Bandra Kurla Complex, West, Mumbai – 400 092, Bandra (East), Mumbai– Maharashtra 400051, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadps1211L Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Kapadia,ARFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kasuri, (Sr. AR)
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL“D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Warner Bros Distributing Inc., United States of America vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle International Taxation 4(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 3411/MUM/2023[AY 2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra (virtually present)For Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 9(1)(vi)

ORDER PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M. The assessee has filed the present appeal against the impugned final assessment order dated 30.07.2023, passed under section 143(3) read with section 144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) pursuant to the directions issued by the learned Dispute Resolution Panel

Ram Baburao Salve, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 17(3)(!), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 5370/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agarwal & Assessment Year: 2011-12

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

which was subsequently revised thereby declaring Nil income. 3. Initially the case was selected for scrutiny and an order under section 143(3) was passed on March 15, 2014 thereby assessing the taxable income at Rs.25,59,430 after addition of Rs. 1,59,93,300 under section 68 being ... Supreme Court, Hon’ble Jurisdictional Bombay High Court and other authorities, we are of the view that the assessment order passed under section 143(3) cannot be termed as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue within the meaning of section 263. Thus we allow the grounds raised

ACIT (Cir.) - 6(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Bhandar Power Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1908/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14 Assistant Commissioner Of Bhandar Power Ltd. Income Tax, 14Th Floor, Essar House, Circle 6(1)(2), 11, K. K. Marg, Mahalaxmi, Vs. Mumbai Mumbai - 400034 (Pan: Aaacb6693B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Vijay Mehta, Fca & Shri Tarang Mehta, Advocate Revenue : Shri Satyaprakash R. Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.10.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), Delhi, Vide Order Dated 25.01.2018 Passed Against The Assessment Order By Ito 6(1)(4), Mumbai, U/S. 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 20.12.2016, For Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Grounds Taken By The Revenue Are Reproduced As Under: 1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Cit(A) Is Not Justified In Deleting The Disallowance Of Deduction U/S 80Ia Of The Income Tax Act Of Rs. 203,13,43,740/-Without Considering The Fact That The Provisions Of Section 801A(10) Is Clearly Attracted In This Case Hence The Assessee Is Not Eligible For Claiming Deduction U/S 801A Of The Income Tax Act.

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, FCA and Shri Tarang Mehta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Satyaprakash R. Singh, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 801ASection 801A(10)Section 80I

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT

Shray Jain, Delhi vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle

Appeal is allowed

ITA 615/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: Sh. Prem Lamba, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member & Sh. Manish

Yashbir Singh, Panipat vs. ITO Ward-5, Panipat

Appeal is allowed

ITA 5174/DEL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Sh.Mukesh Kumar Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

1 5174/Del/2025 Yashbir Singh IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara

Pramod Jaggi, Delhi vs. ITO Ward 43(1), Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 5119/DEL/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2025AY 2022-2023

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Sh. Gaurav Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

1 5119/Del/2025 Pramod Jaggi IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara

M/S Hira Lall & Son (Exports) (P) Ltd., Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Delhi

Appeal is partly allowed in very terms

ITA 4581/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 68

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment

Madan Rauniyar, Gautam Buddha Nagar vs. ITO, Ward- 2(1)(3), Ghaziabad

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 344/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: Ms. Muskan Yadav, Audit ExecutiveFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member & Sh. Manish

Sri Mangoo Singh & Baljeet Singh Memorial Trust, Tehsil Deoband, Saharanpur vs. ITO Exemption Ward, Ghaziabad

ITA 3257/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 143(3)

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment

Ankur Kumar Goel, New Delhi vs. ITO, Civic Centre

ITA 2726/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

Section 143(3)

1 ITA Nos. 2725 & 2726/Del/2025 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH

Ankur Kumar Goel, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 2725/DEL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

Section 143(3)

1 ITA Nos. 2725 & 2726/Del/2025 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH