← All Phrases

“Section 143(1)”

Section References (mined)Section 143Section 143(1)13,466 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 143(1) is Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji (167 ITR 471), cited in 3,926 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 143(1)

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. 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.

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.

CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd.
322 ITR 158 · 2010 · Supreme Court
2,228
citing judgments

Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment of income is not automatically leviable if the assessee has made a full disclosure of all particulars and the addition or disallowance arises from a difference of opinion.

CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd.
313 ITR 340 · 2009 · High Court
2,118
citing judgments

Where an assessee claims that investments were made out of own funds, interest disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D may not apply if the assessee demonstrates the availability of sufficient interest-free funds to cover such investments.

Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar v. CWT
223 ITR 480 · 1997 · High Court
2,040
citing judgments

A court or tribunal is not bound to answer a reference or adjudicate an appeal on its merits if the party at whose instance the proceeding is made fails to appear at the hearing or take necessary steps for its proper conduct.

Judgments citing Section 143(1)

The Vadgaon Janata Co Operative Credit Society Limited, Vadgaon vs. Income Tax Officer, Ichalkaranji

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

ITA 1308/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1308/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 The Vadgaon Janata Co- Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Operative Credit Society Ichalkaranji. Limited, Main Road, Peth Vadgaon, Near Abaji Putala, Tal. Hatkanangale, Kolhapur- 416112. Pan : Aabtt2018E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Pramod S. Shingte Revenue By : Shri Amit Bobde Date Of Hearing : 31.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.09.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27.03.2025 Passed U/S 263 Of The It Act By Ld. Pcit, Pune-1 [‘Ld. Pcit’] For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 1, Pune (Hereinafter Referred To As The Pcit) Erred In Passing Order U/S 263 Holding The Assessment Order Dated 19.03.2023 Passed By The Ao, Nfac

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 263Section 80ASection 80PSection 80P(2)

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

Lintas Employees Health Assistance Trust, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 25(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4364/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2019-20 Lintas Employees Health Income-Tax Officer, Assistance Trust Ward – 25(2)(1), 13Th Floor, Express Towers Mumbai Nariman Point, Vs. Mumbai – 400021 (Pan: Aaatl0325M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Prakash Jotwani & Ms Priya Gada, Advocates Revenue : Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.09.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By Assessee Is Against The Order Of Addl/Jcit (A)-1, Hyderabad Vide Order No. Itba/Apl/S/250/2024- 25/1074797264(1), Dated 21.03.2025 Passed Against The Intimation Issued By The Central Processing Centre Of The Department, Bengaluru (Cpc) U/S. 143(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 12.05.2020 For Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: Ground No. 1: Erred In Not Condoning Delay In Filing The Appeal The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Dismissing The Appeal Without Considering The Merits Of The Case & Erred In Not Condoning The Delay Of 964 Days In Filing The Appeal

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jotwani and Ms Priya Gada, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr. DR
Section 10(15)Section 10(35)Section 143(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON'BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI GIRISH

Bbg Metal Syndicate Pvt. Ltd, Cuttack vs. DCIT Circle-1, Cuttack

In the result, we are of the view that no inference called for in the order of the CIT(A) and consequently we dismissed the same

ITA 361/CTK/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack24 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.361/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2020-2021) Bbg Metal Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. Vs Dcit, Circle-1(1),Cuttack Badambadi, Behind Traffic Tower, Cuttack, 753009 Pan No. : Aaecb 4011 H (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri K. K Bal, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 24/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24/09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre(Nfac), Delhi Dated 28.03.2025 For The Assessment Year 2015-2016. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Returned Filed By The Assessee Came To Be Processed & Intimation Came To Be Issued U/S. 143(1) Of The Act. The Assessee Had Filed Rectification Application & The Cpc Had Rejected The Rejection Application. It Was Submission That It Was Not A Effective Rejection But Was In Fact Reprocessing Of The Intimation U/S. 143(1) Of The Act. It Was Submission That On Appeal The Ld.Cit(A) Had Observed The Page 3 Of His Order That The Issue Were Purely Factual & Required Verification Of The Claim At The End Of The Ao & At Consequently, Directed The Ao To Verify The Claim Made By The Appellant & Passed A Speaking Order U/S. 154 Of The Act Giving An Opportunity Of Being Heard

For Appellant: Shri K. K Bal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 154(3)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, कटक न्यायपीठ,कटक IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK (THROUGH VIRTUAL HEARING) श्री जाजज

Madhusudan Academy of Science and Charitable Trust, Dhenkanal vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assesee is allowed

ITA 216/CTK/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack24 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.216/Ctk/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-2019) Madhusudan Academy Of Vs Ito, Exemption Ward, Science & Charitable Trust, Bhubaneswar Kunjakanta, Dhenkanal, 759001 Pan No. : Aactm 1910 F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri, K.C.Jena, Ar राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. D.R. सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 24/09/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24/09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Addl/Jcit(A)-6, Delhi Order Dated 30/01/2025 In Appeal No.Cit(A),Bhubaneswar-1/14820/2019-20 For The Assessment Year 2018- 19. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Assesee Is A Trust Which Has Not Got Registration Under Section 12A Of The Act. It Was Submission That The Returned Filed By The Assesee For The Impugned Assessment Year Came To Be Processed & Intimation U/S. 143(1) Of The Act Came To Be Issued Where In The Expenses Claimed Being The Application Has Not Been Considered & The Total Gross Receipt Has Been Treated As The Income Of The Assesee. It Was Submission That If I Told The Income Of The Assesee Is To Be Assessed Then Income Should Have Been Assessed As Business

For Appellant: Shri, K.C.Jena, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. D.R
Section 12ASection 143(1)

prime facie adjustment without verification. It was submission that the adjustment has made did not fall within the preview of the provision of section 143(1) of the Act. 3. In reply, the Ld. Sr. DR vehemently supports the order of the CPC and the Ld. JCIT. 4. I have ... entire gross receipts of Rs.16,84,379/- as income of the assessee. This admittedly is not permissible as per the provisions of section 143(1) of the Act as the adjustment made are not within preview of the provisions 143(1) of the Act, the intimation issued is found