← 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)

Pba Infrastructure Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 5(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 4211/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nishit Gandhi a/wFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani, CIT-DR a/w
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “C” BENCH : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP

DCIT Central Circle 2 Thane, Thane vs. Hiren Bechar Patel, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are decided as follows:-

ITA 4062/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Vijay H. Patel, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra (CIT DR)
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 68

emanated from the order of the Ld. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax C.C.-2 Thane (for brevity the Ld. AO ) order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act, date of order 29.09.2021 for A.Y. 2012-13 and 30.09.2021 for A.Y. 2015-16 to 2016-17 related

Pentokey Organy Organ (India) Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Comm. of Income Tax, Circle 1(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2651/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailpentokey Organy (India) Ltd. 45/47, Somaiya Bhavan, M.G. Road, Fort, Mumbai. ............... Appellant Pan: Aaacp6875D V/S Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle - 1(2)(1), ……………… Respondent Room No.535, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai- 400020 Assessee By : Shri K. Gopal, Adv. Shri Om Kandalkar Revenue By : Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr. DR
Section 115Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 234Section 250

3,16,49,438/-. The return filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny, and vide order dated 06.11.2017, passed under section 143(3) of the Act, the scrutiny assessment was concluded, accepting the return of the assessee. 4. Subsequently, on the basis that the assessee had claimed large expenses ... evident that the reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act were initiated on the basis that during the assessment proceedings under section 143(3) of the Act, no proper documentary evidence was furnished by the assessee to substantiate the genuineness and reasonableness of the following amounts paid

Nitin Chaturbhug Garg, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 41(3)(3), Mumbai

ITA 2569/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Natekar, ARFor Respondent: Assessee by
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69C

that the assessee has filed its return of income on 29.09.2009 declaring total income of Rs. 1,96,829/-, which is processed under section 143(3) of the Act. Further the assessment under section 143(3) was completed on 26.07.2011, determining the total income of assessee

Nitin Chaturbhug Garg, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 41(3)(3), Mumbai

ITA 2568/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Natekar, ARFor Respondent: Assessee by
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69C

that the assessee has filed its return of income on 29.09.2009 declaring total income of Rs. 1,96,829/-, which is processed under section 143(3) of the Act. Further the assessment under section 143(3) was completed on 26.07.2011, determining the total income of assessee

Mahaveera Rice World (Now Known As Mahavira Rice World LLP), Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 46(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6419/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Hon’Ble

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69C

6419_DEL_2025_Mahaveera Rice World IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR

Park View Automotives Private Limited, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 19(3), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5711/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year : 2012-13 Park View Automotives P. Ltd., Vs. Ito, S-606, School Block, Ward 19(3), Laxmi Nagar, Delhi. Delhi – 110 092. Pan: Aaecp3499H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mukesh Jain, Ca & Shri Samyak Jain, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.02.2026 Order Per Madhumita Roy, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Jain, CA &For Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : G : NEW DELHI BEFORE MS MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI NAVEEN

Sonica Sachdeva Th the Legal Heir Deepak Sachdeva, Ghaziabad vs. ACIT, Ghaziabad

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

ITA 5051/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon’Bleasstt. Year : 2022-23 Sonica Sachdeva Through The Legal Vs. Acit, Circle 2(1)(1), Heir Deepak Sachdeva, Ghaziabad 6042, Ats Advantage, Ahinsa Khand, Indrapura, Ghaziabad, Up (Pan: Bfzpk7879E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri A.K. Khurana, Ca Respondent By : Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. Dr.

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Khurana, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘E’’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND

Max Square Ltd, Noida vs. ITO Ward-5(1)(5), Noida

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4100/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2021-22] Max Square Ltd. Vs Ito L-12, Max Tower, Sector-16-B Ward-5(1)(5) Gautam Budha Nagar Noida Noida, Uttar Pradesh-201301 Pan-Aagcn5808G Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Anil Bhalla, Ca & Shri Nitin Kumar Sharma, Ca Respondent By Shri Gouranga Chandra Das, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 08.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 13.02.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 30.05.2025 Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Nfac/2020-21/10308419 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 07.12.2023 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2021-22. 2. Brief Acts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Company, Engaged In The Business Of Real Estates Development & Started Construction Of Commercial Complex Project “Max Square” At Sector 129, Noida. The Assessee Borrowed Funds From Indusind Bank Amounting To Inr 29.45 Crores For The Construction & Further Raised Funds Through Issue Of Equity/Ccd’S. The Funds Which Remained Un-Utilized, Were Invested Temporary In Fdrs From Which Interest Was Received Of Inr 63,77,502/- & Was Credited To The Cost Of Construction. However, The Ao Has Held The Same As Taxable Under The Head “Income From Other Sources”.

Section 143(3)Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “G” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI MANISH

M/S Stance Consumer Electronics Private Limited, Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-32, Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee for AY 2017-18 in ITA No

ITA 2792/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalita Nos.2791 & 2792/Del/2025 (Assessment Yearss 2016-17 & 2017-18)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH

M/S Stance Consumer Electronics Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-32, Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee for AY 2017-18 in ITA No

ITA 2791/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalita Nos.2791 & 2792/Del/2025 (Assessment Yearss 2016-17 & 2017-18)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH

DCIT, Circle 52(1), New Delhi vs. Bhupinder Singh Bhalla, New Delhi

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2964/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice Presdient (), Shri Vimal Kumar & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

For Respondent: Dr Rakesh Gupta, Adv. (Virtual) S/Shri
Section 142(1)Section 142(3)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 54B

under Section 250 of the Income-Tax Act,1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) arising out of assessment order dated 30.12.2018 under Section 143(3) of the Act by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 53(1), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “the AO”) for assessment year ... under Section 250 of the Income-Tax Act,1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) arising out of assessment order dated 30.12.2018 under Section 143(3) of the Act by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 53(1), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “the AO”) for assessment year

Mckinsey & Company India LLP, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-29(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 1028/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 253Section 271(1)(c)

ORDER PER BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, AM, This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the final assessment order dated 30.06.2021 passed under section 143(3) read with section 144C(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), pursuant to the directions

Laxmanbhai Premjibhai Savani, Junagadh vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 Jnd, Junagadh

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

ITA 845/RJT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot12 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri R. D. Lalchandani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Kumar Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

Pune [Ld. CIT(A)], dated 30.09.2025, which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 28.12.2017. 2. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted

Shree Keshav Co Op Credit Society Ltd, Junagadh vs. The DCIT/ACIT, Cir 1(1), Rajkot

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee, are allowed

ITA 794/RJT/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot12 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri D. M. Rindani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Kumar Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, dated 29.09.2025, which in turn arise out of separate assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under section 143(3) r.w.s. 143(3A) & 143(3B) and 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) dated 10.03.2021 and 10.09.2022 respectively ... that similar claims were allowed to the appellant by the Dept. in various scrutiny assessments particularly for A.Y. 2014-15 during proceedings under section 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act. 5. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter and withdraw any ground of appeal anytime

Shree Keshav Co Op Credit Society Ltd, Junagadh vs. The DCIT/ACIT, Cir - 1(1), Rajkot

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee, are allowed

ITA 793/RJT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot12 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri D. M. Rindani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Kumar Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, dated 29.09.2025, which in turn arise out of separate assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under section 143(3) r.w.s. 143(3A) & 143(3B) and 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) dated 10.03.2021 and 10.09.2022 respectively ... that similar claims were allowed to the appellant by the Dept. in various scrutiny assessments particularly for A.Y. 2014-15 during proceedings under section 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act. 5. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter and withdraw any ground of appeal anytime

Sar Auto Products Limited, Rajkot vs. ACIT Circle 1(2), Rajkot

In the result impugned order in set aside and, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 668/RJT/2025[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot12 Feb 2026AY 2009-2010

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Gaurang Khakhar, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND DR. DINESH MOHAN

Vishal Navinchandra Shah, Jamnagar vs. Office of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeal, Bhubaneswar

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

ITA 482/RJT/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot12 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Savla, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Kumar Gupta, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 50CSection 50C(2)

Income for A.Y. 2013-14 on 29.09.2013 declaring income of Rs. 15, 15,940/-. Appellants case was selected for Assessment Proceedings under Section 143(3) for A.Y. 2013-14. During the Course of Assessment, Learned Assessing Officer came to know that the appellant had sold two properties situated at Kalher

Hollis Vitrified Private Limited, Morbi, Gujarat, India vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 1, Rajkot, Gujarat, India

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, is dismissed

ITA 363/RJT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot12 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 363/Rjt/2024 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) (Hybrid Hearing) Hollis Vitrified Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Revenue Survey No. 756/P1/P1/P1, Opp. Tax-1, Rajkot Antique Granito, Ghuntu,-Lakhdhirpur Road, Morbi (Gujarat)-363642 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacch5628Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Fenil H. Mehta, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

Hollis Vitrified Pvt. Ltd. 23. We also note that assessing officer has framed the appeal effect order under section 263 read with section 143(3) of the Act, read with section 144B of the Act, dated 14.03.2025. In this appeal effect order, the assessee again failed to file the documentary

Jasibai Dayaram Amlani, Amravati vs. DCIT Amravati Circle, Amravati

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 749/NAG/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur12 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Loya, CAFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 40A(2)(b)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR “SMC” BENCH : NAGPUR (through virtual) BEFORE DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A.No.749/NAG/2025