← 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)

Hematology Foundation, Lucknow vs. CPC Bengaluru, Jurisdictional AO- Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax(Exemption), Lucknow

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 285/LKW/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2020-21 Hematology Foundation V. The Cit(Exemption) I-Block, Hematology Office Lucknow Sgpgi, Raebareily Road Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aabth3096C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Ms. Shweta Mittal, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against Order Dated 05.03.2024, Passed By The Learned Addl/Jcit(A)-1, Nashik For Assessment Year 2020-21. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Trust Registered Under Section 12A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’). The Assessee-Trust Filed Its Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 11.01.2021, Declaring Nil Income, After Claiming Exemption Under Section 11 Of The Act. The Centralized Processing Centre (Cpc), Bangalore Processed The Return Under Section 143(1) Of The Act, Determining The Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs.18,28,596/-, Thereby Raising A Demand Of Rs.4,30,120/-.

For Appellant: Ms. Shweta Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 154

declaring Nil income, after claiming exemption under section 11 of the Act. The Centralized Processing Centre (CPC), Bangalore processed the return under section 143(1) of the Act, determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.18,28,596/-, thereby raising a demand of Rs.4,30,120/-. ITA No.285/LKW/2024 Page ... being used by the Counsel filing the Income Tax Return. It was submitted that the return was processed by the CPC, Bangalore under section 143(1) of the Act, vide Intimation dated 23.11.2021, whereby, a demand of Rs.4,30,120/- was created after denying assessee’s claim of exemption under

Darshana Dave, Kanpur vs. ITO, Ward 1(3)(5), Kanpur, DCIT, CPC

The appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 189/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Ms. Darshana Dave V. The Ito 14/75, Civil Lines Ward 1(3)(5) Kanpur (U.P) Kanpur Tan/Pan:Ahepd2111L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against Order Dated 07.02.2024, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Her Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 14.09.2017, Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.7,91,625/-, Claiming Long Term Capital Loss Of Rs.8,69,268/-. The Centralized Processing Centre (Cpc), Bangalore Processed The Return Of The Assessee Under Section 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’) & Passed An Order Dated 11.01.2019, Computing The Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs.34,46,712/-, Thereby Raising A Demand Of Rs.9,59,106/- As Against The Refund Of Rs.39,250/- Computed By The Assessee. Against This Order, The Assessee Filed

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R
Section 10Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 80C

claiming Long Term Capital Loss of Rs.8,69,268/-. The Centralized Processing Centre (CPC), Bangalore processed the return of the assessee under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called “the Act’) and passed an order dated 11.01.2019, computing the total income of the assessee at Rs.34