“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)

Jhaji Shikshan Samiti, Durg vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax Exemption Circle, Bhopal

The appeal of the assessee is ALLOWED

ITA 476/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur09 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliassessment Year: 2018-19 Jhaiji Shikshan Samiti, Arora Niwas, Ward No. 08, Durg Road, Bemetara, Durg-491335, Chhattisgarh Pan: Aaatj7624B ……….Appellant

For Appellant: Mr Yogesh Sethia [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Ms Manisha Kinnu [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)(b)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 246ASection 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI

Harjeet Singh Chhabra, Raipur vs. ITO, Ward-1, Raipur (Erst. ITO-1(3), Raipur)

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 469/RPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur09 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.469/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-14 Harjeet Singh Chhabra H. No.84, Las Vista, Mahaveer Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 (C.G.) Pan: Adkpc0408P .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Central Circle-1, Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Hardik Jain, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 4

following the procedure like issue of notice under section 143(2)/142. This does not pro-vide accepting the return as provided under section 143(1)(a) : the officer has to complete the assessment under section 143(3) only. If an assessment is to be completed under section 143

Agri Gold Foods and Farm Products Limited, Vijayawada vs. Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Vijayawada

ITA 2000/HYD/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam09 Sept 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Us:

Section 143(3)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, विशाखापटणम पीठ में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Visakhapatnam Bench श्री रिीश सूद, माननीय न्याययक सदस्य

Satyapal Singh Chauhan HUF, Ambala Cantt vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4 Ambala, Income Tax Office, Ambala

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 715/CHANDI/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Us:- "1. That The Ld. Pcit Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Exercising Revisionary Powers U./S 263. 2. That The Ld. Pcit Has Erred In Law & Facts In Holding That The Case Is Covered Under Clause (1) Of Explanation 2 Of Section 263(1). 3. That Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Alter, Amend Or To Substitute The Above Grounds Of Appeal Either Before Or At The Time Of Hearing Of Case." 2. The Facts, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Huf Have Been Filing The Returns Year After Year Disclosing Agricultural Income Besides Normal Rental Income. Agricultural Income Disclosed In The Previous Years & In The Year Under Consideration Is As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR (Virtual Mode)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, चण्डीगढ़ न्यायपीठ “बी”, चण्डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “B”, CHANDIGARH HEARING THROUGH: HYBRID

Kothari Agritech Pvt. Ltd, Solapur vs. The DCIT, Circle-1, Solapur

In the result, the both appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2455/PUN/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Sept 2025AY 2018-2019

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

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 80Section 801ASection 80ISection 80J

account of disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D, to the income of Rs.11,63,23,680/- determined as per order under section 143(1)(a) of the Act. However, no disallowance under section 80IA was made by the Ld. FAO while passing the assessment order. With regard ... Thus, as mentioned in the notice u/s 154 dated 12th June 2023, since due to oversight, it was missed thatcomputation was based on section 143(1) for assessed income, it cannot be conclusively said that FAO accepted the deduction u/s 801A of IT act. Also, it is re-iterated that

Kothari Agritech Private Limited, Solapur vs. DCIT Circle-1, Solapur

In the result, the both appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2392/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 80Section 801ASection 80ISection 80J

Aryaki Daw, Kolkata vs. JCIT(A), Noida

ITA 793/KOL/2025[22-23]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Sept 2025

Bench: The Date Of Processing The Intimation U/S.143(1) Of The Act. In My Opinion, The Benefit Cannot Be Denied By The Ao (Cpc) Especially When The Form 10Ie Was Available With The Assessing Officer At The Time Of Assessment. The Issue Is Now Squarely Covered By The Decision Of The Co-Ordinate Bench Of Cochin Bench In The Case Of Jomon Joseph Vs Ito In Ita No.482/Coch/2025 For A.Y. 2021-22 Order Dated 31.7.2025, Wherein, The Co- Ordinate Bench Has Held As Under :

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

ITA No. 793/Kol/2025 Assessment Year : 2022-2023 filed on 31.1.2022, whereas the return was processed u/s.143(1) of the Act

The Property Association of Baptist Churches Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Exemption Ward-3, Chennai

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

ITA 2356/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2355 & 2356/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18 The Property Association Of Baptist Vs. The Income Tax Officer Churches Pvt. Ltd., 903, Tower E2, (Exemption) Ward 3, Ekanta North Town, Stephension Road, Chennai. Perambur, Chennai 600 012. [Pan:Aabct2815J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Akash, Advocate & Shri P.M. Kathir, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri N. Rajakumar, Addl. Cit (Virtual) सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 03.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.09.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Dated 14.03.2024 & 28.02.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Years 2016-17 & 2017-18 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri G. Akash, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri N. Rajakumar, Addl. CIT (Virtual)

Section 11Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 154

assessee under section 11 of the Act for not filing the audit report in Form 10B vide order 3 I.T.A. No.2355 & 2356/Chny/24 under section 143(1) of the Act dated 12.12.2018. It is brought to our notice that the audit report in Form 10B was filed on 11.01.2019 and accordingly

The Property Association of Baptist Churches Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Exemption Ward-3, Chennai

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

ITA 2355/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri G. Akash, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri N. Rajakumar, Addl. CIT (Virtual)

Section 11Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 154

Family Physicians Association, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, (Exemption), Ward, Bangalore

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

ITA 946/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2016-17 Family Physicians Association, Vs. Ito (Exemptions), #202-3 Mahesh Clinic, Ward, R T Street, B V K Iyengar Road Cross, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 053, Karnataka. Pan :Aaatf 1083 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Nagesh, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel For Department. Date Of Hearing : 15.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.09.2025

For Appellant: Shri. Nagesh, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Department

Section 11(2)Section 143(1)Section 249(3)

paid due tax thereon. Assessee has also not received any notice regarding disallowance of section 11(2) of the Act nor under section 143(1) of the Act. Only after raising grievance vide acknowledgment No.8966393 dated 29.02.2024 assessee was made available information under section 143(1

Mtitanium Apartments Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy. CIT Circle 1(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4694/MUM/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble () Assessment Year: 2024-2025 Mtitanium Apartments Pvt. Ltd., Dy. Cit-Circle 1(2)(1), 2Nd Floor, Shreeniwas House, Range 412, Aayakar Bhawan, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Fort, Vs. M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400 001. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aafcm 6810 Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Narayn AtalFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)

1,85,60,980/-. The said return was pr . The said return was processed by CPC, Bengaluru ocessed by CPC, Bengaluru under section 143(1) of the Act, whereby the assessee’s claim of set- under section 143(1) of the Act, whereby the assessee’s claim of set under ... section 143(1) of the Act, whereby the assessee’s claim of set off of brought forward business loss of ₹1,10,28,515/ off of brought forward business loss of 1,10,28,515/- pertaining to the assessment year 2023 the assessment year 2023-24 was disallowed

Concept Motors (India) Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. Assessing Officer, Circle-4(2), Delhi

ITA 373/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)

Court in Rohan Korgaonkar v. DCIT reported in [2024] 159 taxmann.com 321 has held that such disallowance could indeed be made even in Section 143(1) “processing” as well. We, thus reject assessee’s corresponding 3 substantive grounds in very terms and direct the Learned Assessing Officer to compute

Vipul Medcorp Insurance Tpa Private Limited, Bangalore vs. ACIT Circle 26(2), New Delhi

ITA 2238/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandravipul Medcorp Insurance Vs. Acit, Circle 26(2) Tpa Private Limited New Delhi (Merged With Vidal Health Asst. Director Of Income Insurance Tpa Pvt. Ltd.) Tax, Cpc 1St Floor, Tower-B, Sjr I Epip Zone, Whitefield Bangalore, Karnataka - 560066 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aabcv8688F Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Sidhant Arora, CAFor Respondent: An application for adjournment rejected

Section 143(1)Section 43B

order dated 02.11.2019 passed by the CPC Bangalore, under P a g e | 2 Vipul Medcorp Insurance TPA Pvt. Ltd. (AY: 2018-19) Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The assessee filed its return ... income on 24.10.2018 declaring total income at Rs.4,96,39,170/- which was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act and intimation dated 02.11.2019 was served upon the assessee. In fact, by and under the said intimation order dated 02.11.2019 the income of the appellant has been enhanced

Veena Mishra Through Nitish Mishra, Patna vs. ACIT, Cent.Cir-1, Patna

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

ITA 152/PAT/2025[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Patna08 Sept 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PATNA BENCH AT KOLKATA [Virtual Court] Before SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RAKESH

Sakshi Roongta Benefit Trust, Rajeev Gandhi Nagar vs. ITO Ward 1(2), Kota

In the result, the appeal in ITA no

ITA 385/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention That The Assessee Has Assailed The Appeal In Ita No.

For Appellant: Shri Swapnil Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

Section 143(1)Section 154

02/09/2015 and same was revised on 21/03/2017 declaring total income of Rs. 2,20,550/-. In the intimation issued under section 143(1) of the Act, CPC taxed income at MMR rate without giving Slab benefit like individual and raised demand of Rs. 72,370/. 5. Aggrieved by the intimation

Samiksha Roongta Benefit Trust, Rajeev Gandhi Nagar vs. ITO, ITO Ward, Kota

In the result, the appeal in ITA no

ITA 384/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention That The Assessee Has Assailed The Appeal In Ita No.

For Appellant: Shri Swapnil Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

Section 143(1)Section 154

Samiksha Roongta Benefit Trust, Rajeev Gandhi Nagar vs. ITO, ITO Ward Kota

In the result, the appeal in ITA no

ITA 383/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention That The Assessee Has Assailed The Appeal In Ita No.

For Appellant: Shri Swapnil Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

Section 143(1)Section 154

Devi Dayal, Kaithal vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Kaithal

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 899/CHANDI/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Sept 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 899/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Devi Dayal, Vs The Ito, Pundri Anaj Mandi, Ward – 1, Kaithal-Haryana 136026. Kaithal. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aajpd5851H अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, Ca & Ms. Shruti Khandelwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 30.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.09.2025

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, CA and Ms. Shruti Khandelwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

Section 249Section 253Section 3Section 5

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ, च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, ‘A’ CHANDIGARH

DCIT, C-V, Ludhiana vs. M/S Hero Cycles Ltd., Ludhiana

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 588/CHANDI/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 588/Chd/2018 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2012-13 The DCIT C-V, Ludhiana बनाम M/s Hero Cycles Ltd. Hero Nagar, G.T. Road Ludhiana स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAACH4073P अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 473/Chd/2018 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2012-13 M/s Hero Cycles Ltd. Hero Nagar, G.T. Road Ludhiana बनाम The ACIT C-V, Ludhiana स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAACH4073P

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, Shri Ashish Aggarwal &For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

that the assessee filed its return of income on 20/03/2014 declaring an income of Rs. 140,32,08,590/- which was processed under section 143(1) of the Act. Later on the case was selected for scrutiny. The A.O. during the course of assessment proceedings noticed that the assessee earned

M/S Hero Cycles Ltd., Ludhiana vs. ACIT, C-V, Ludhiana

ITA 473/CHANDI/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

For Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kumar, Shri Ashish Aggarwal &

Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)