← 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)

Shmashan Sewa Samiti, Amritsar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(1), Amritsar

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 594/ASR/2024[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Amritsar18 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Udayan Das Gupta, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 594/Asr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Shmashan Sewa Samiti Ito - Ward 1(1) बनाम/ Vs. Outside Chatiwind Gate, New Cr Building Amritsar-143001 Amritsar. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aasas-5377-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/Appellant By : Shri Rohit Kapoor Advocate A/W Shri V.S. Aggarwal (Itp) –Ld. Ars ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Charan Dass (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07-08-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18-08-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19 Arises Out Of An Order Of Ld. Addl. / Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Mumbai [Cit(A)] Dated 29-08-2024 In The Matter Of An Intimation Issued By Cpc U/S 143(1) Dated 12-03-2020. The Registry Has Noted Delay Of 5 Days In The Appeal Which Stands Condoned. 2. It Emerges That The Assessee Is A Charitable Society. The Cpc Considered Entire Gross Receipts As The Income Of The Assessee Denying Deduction Claimed By The Assessee U/S 10(23C)(V). The Said

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Kapoor Advocate a/w ShriFor Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr DR
Section 10Section 143(1)

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘DB’, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR HYBRID HEARING BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL

Sunrise Facilitators Private Limited, Chandigarh vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchkula

ITA 689/CHANDI/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.689/Chandi/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S Sunrise Facilitators Pvt. Ltd. Dcit Circle बनाम/ Vs. 2238/5B, Shanti Nagar Aaykar Bhawan, Manimajra, Chandigarh. Sector 2, Panchkula "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaics-0850-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Parikshit Aggarwal (Ca) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Priyanka Dhar (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06-08-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18-08-2025. आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2019-20 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 18-08-2022 In The Matter Of An Intimation Issued By Cpc U/S 143(1) On 15-09-2020 Disallowing Late Payment Of Employees’ Contribution To Pf / Esi For Rs.161.54 Lacs U/S 36(1)(Va) R.W.S. 2(24)(X) As Reported By Tax Auditor In Tax Audit Report. The Ld. Cit(A)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Priyanka Dhar (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, CHANDIGARH PHYSICAL HEARING BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JM AND

ACIT, C-4(1), Chandigarh vs. M/S Glaxosmithkline Consumer Healthcare Ltd., Gurgaon

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 1355/CHANDI/2018[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Aug 2025AY 1997-98

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.1355/Chandi/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 1997-98) Dcit-1(1)(1) M/S Hindustan Unilever Ltd. R.N.579A, 5Th Floor (Legal Successor Of M/S Glaxosmithkline बनाम/ Aaykar Bhawan Consumer Healthcare Ltd.) Vs. Mumbai – 400020 Unilever House, B.D. Swant Marg, Chakala Andheri (East), Mumbai – 400 099 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaach-1004-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Rohit Jain (Advocate) & Ms. Somya Jain, Ca – Ld. Ars ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Rohit Sharma (Cit) A/W Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Drs सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27-06-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18-08-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Revenue For Assessment Year (Ay) 1997-98 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Chandigarh Dated 02-08-2018 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer (Ao) U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 254 Of The Act On 31-03-2017. The Revenue Has Filed Revised Form No.36 On 10-09-2024 Which Is On Record. The Grounds Of Appeal Read As Under: -

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain (Advocate) and Ms. SomyaFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma (CIT) a/w Sh. Vivek
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 234DSection 43B

1 Assessment Year: 1997-98 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, CHANDIGHARH BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV

Santanu Roy, ITO, Ward 10(2), Kolkata vs. Ems Polyset Private Limited, Kolkata

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2194/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. Nos.2193&2194/Kol/2024 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2112-13 Ito, Ward-10(2), Kolkata.…………………….…………….……....Appellant Vs. Ems Polyset Pvt. Ltd………………………………………….…..... Respondent Gobinda Niwas, Jyangra, Baguihati, Kolkata - 700059. [Pan: Aaace5551F] Appearances By: Shri Susanta Saha, Acit- Sr. Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Subrato Rai, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 13, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 18, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Revenue Against Two Separate Orders Both Dated 06.08.2024 Passed By The Cit(Appeals) Addl/Jcit(A), Madurai [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) For Assessment Years 2011-12 & 2012-13 Respectively. Since, The Issues Involved In Both The Appeals Are Common & Relate To The Same Assessee, Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. First, We Take Up Ita No.2193/Kol/2024 For Narration Of Facts. 2. At The Outset, The Registry Has Informed That There Are Delays Of 27 Days In Filing Both The Present Appeals. The Revenue Filed Applications For Condonation Of Delay Stating Reasons For Such Delay. After Considering The Applications, We Find Reasonable Cause. We

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 147Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘SMC’ BENCH KOLKATA Before Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member and Shri Sanjay Awasthi, Accountant

ITO, Ward 10(2), Kolkata vs. Ems Polyset Private Limited, Kolkata

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2193/KOL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. Nos.2193&2194/Kol/2024 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2112-13 Ito, Ward-10(2), Kolkata.…………………….…………….……....Appellant Vs. Ems Polyset Pvt. Ltd………………………………………….…..... Respondent Gobinda Niwas, Jyangra, Baguihati, Kolkata - 700059. [Pan: Aaace5551F] Appearances By: Shri Susanta Saha, Acit- Sr. Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Subrato Rai, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 13, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 18, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Revenue Against Two Separate Orders Both Dated 06.08.2024 Passed By The Cit(Appeals) Addl/Jcit(A), Madurai [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) For Assessment Years 2011-12 & 2012-13 Respectively. Since, The Issues Involved In Both The Appeals Are Common & Relate To The Same Assessee, Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. First, We Take Up Ita No.2193/Kol/2024 For Narration Of Facts. 2. At The Outset, The Registry Has Informed That There Are Delays Of 27 Days In Filing Both The Present Appeals. The Revenue Filed Applications For Condonation Of Delay Stating Reasons For Such Delay. After Considering The Applications, We Find Reasonable Cause. We

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 147Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘SMC’ BENCH KOLKATA Before Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member and Shri Sanjay Awasthi, Accountant