← 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)

Ashok Poddar Foundation, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 1(4), Exempt, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1046/KOL/2025[2023-2024]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Aug 2025AY 2023-2024

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.1046/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2023-23 Ashok Poddar Foundation……………………...………………..….……….Appellant Ground Floor, 2, Gurusaday Road, Ballygunge, Kol-19. [Pan: Aaeta1013B] Vs. Ito, Ward-1(4), Exempt, Kolkata ………................................……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Amit Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Sima Das Biswas, Jcit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 11, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 12, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Delhi Dated 04.04.2025 [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)] For The Assessment Year 2023–24. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That In The Case Of The Assessee, Cpc, Bengaluru Disallowed An Exemption Of Rs.28,12,542/- & The Disallowance Was Made On The Ground That Form 10B/10Bb Was Filed On 28.11.2023 Which Was Only Accepted By The Assessee On 20.11.2023. Consequently, The Addition Of Rs.20.70,688/- Was Added To The Total Income Of The Assessee Determining Tax Of Rs.5,64,030/- Including Interest Of Rs.85,690/- U/S 234B Of The Act & Rs.22,777/- U/S 234C Of The Act. 3. Aggrieved By The Above Order, The Assessee Preferred An Appeal Before The Ld. Cit(A), Where The Contention Of The Assessee Was That The

Section 143(1)Section 234BSection 234C

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

Shashi Prabhu & Associates, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Mumbai

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

ITA 2713/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18 Shashi Prabhu & Associates Assistant Commissioner Of C Wankhede Stadium, Income Tax, Mumbai D-Road, Churchgate, Mumbai - Vs. 400020 (Pan : Aaafs3813K) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Bhupendra Karkhanis,Ca Revenue : Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. Ar Date Of Hearing : 04.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.08.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)- 4, Kolkata, Vide Order No. Itba/Apl/S/250/2024-25/1073259510(1), Dated 13.02.2025 Passed Against Intimation By Centralized Processing Centre, Bengaluru, U/S. 143(1) Of The Income-Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 09.03.2019 For Assessment Year 2017- 18. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: " 1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Granting Tds Credit Of Rs. 91,57,596/- Only As Against Rs. 1,31,74,662/- Claimed In The Income Tax Return Resulting In Short Granting Of Tds Credit On A Incorrect Assumption Of Fact That The Tds Credit Of Rs. 39,38,139 Had Already Been Allowed To Appellant Firm In Ay 2016-17, Which Is Wrong & Contrary To The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Provisions Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 & The Rules Made There Under.

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Karkhanis,CAFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. AR
Section 143(1)Section 234BSection 234C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT

Anilkumar Gopinathannair, Palakkad vs. ITO Ward 1, Tps, Palakkad

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

ITA 519/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2017-18 Anilkumar Gopinathan Nair .......... Appellant Sree Lakshmi, Hill View Nagar, Kanjikode Palakkad 678621 [Pan: Aiapg3415B] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Wd-1 & Tps, Palakkad.......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Padmanathan K.V. Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 06.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.08.2025 O R D E R This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 20.06.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is An Individual Engaged In The Business Of Wholesale Distributor Of Fly Ash To Different Cement Manufacturing Companies. The Return Of Income For Ay 2017-18 Was Filed On 28.01.12018 Declaring Income Of Rs. 10,63,34070/-. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The Ito, Ward-1 & Tps, Palakkad (Hereinafter Called "The Ao") Vide Order Dated 21.12.2019 Passed U/S. 143(1) Of 2 Anilkumar Gopinathan Nair The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Accepting The Returned Income. Subsequently, The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny By Issuing Notices U/S. 143(2) Of The Act On 05.08.2019 & 05.09.2019. On Verification It Was Found That The Appellant Made Cash Deposit Of Rs. 64,39,500/- Into The Bank Account Out Of Which A Sum Of Rs. 63,83,000/- Was Made In Specified Bank Notes (Sbn) During Demonetisation Period. Accordingly, The Ao Came To A Finding That The Appellant Could Deposit Only Rs. 32,25,000/- & The Balance Of Rs. 32,14,500/- Was Treated As Unexplained Deposit & Was Assessed To Tax U/S. 115Bbe Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Padmanathan K.VFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 143(2)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM Assessment Year: 2017-18 Anilkumar Gopinathan