← 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)

Shammi Nagpal HUF, Hisar vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Rohtak

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2358/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2013-14 Vs. Pcit, Shammi Nagpal Huf, H. No. 7, Sector-13, Hissar, Rohtak Haryana Pan: Aazhs3505D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Kuldeep Khera, Ca Sh. Mohit Girdhar, Ca Department By Sh. Mahesh Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 15.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23.07.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2013-14, Arises Against The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (In Short “The Pcit”), Rohtak’S Din & Order No. Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2023- 24/1062887031(1), Dated 19.03.2024 Involving Proceedings Under Section 147 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’). Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. It Emerges During The Course Of Hearing That The Sole Substantive Issue Between The Parties Is That Of Correctness Of The Learned Lower Authorities Action Assessing The Assessee’S Interest Component Of Land Acquisition Compensation U/S 28 Of The Land Acquisition Act, 1894, While Invoking Section 57(Iv) R.W.S. 56(1)(A) R.W.S. 145A(B) Of The Act. 3. Learned Sr. Dr Representing The Department Vehemently Argued That The Instant Issue Is No More Res Integra In Light Of Mahender Pal Narang Vs. Cbdt (2020) 423 Itr 13 (P&H) As Well As Pcit Vs. Inderjit Singh Sodhi Huf (2024) 161 Taxmann.Com 301 (Del.) Wherein The Department Has Succeeded Before Their Lordships That The Impugned Interest Component Ought To Be Assessed As Income From “Other” Sources Only. 4. We Have Given Our Thoughtful Consideration To The Assessee’S Pleadings & Revenue’S Foregoing Vehement Contention. It Emerges That This Tribunal’S Recent Decision In Pawan Kumar Vs. Pcit (2024) 159 Taxmann.Com 61 (Del.-Trib.) Has Distinguished The Said Case Law As Under:

Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)

individual. He filed his return for AY 2018-19 on 29.08.2018 declaring income of Rs. 6,35,470/-. His return was processed under section 143(1)(a) on 28.06.2019. His case was selected for complete scrutiny assessment under the e- assessment Scheme, 2019 on two issues, namely refund claim ... income from other sources and claimed deduction for 50% as per section 57(iv) of the 1961 Act. The return was processed under section 143(1) of the Act. An application under section 264 was made claiming that by mistake the assessee treated the interest income as income from other

Basant Aerospace Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-5, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee for assessment year 2016-17

ITA 2292/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri V. K. Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 133Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

filed by the assessee company on 31-03-2013 declaring total income of Rs. 8,05,820/- which was duly processed under section 143(1) of the Act. This assessment was sought to be reopened by issuance of notice under section

Basant Aerospace Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-5, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee for assessment year 2016-17

ITA 520/DEL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri V. K. Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 133Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

filed by the assessee company on 31-03-2013 declaring total income of Rs. 8,05,820/- which was duly processed under section 143(1) of the Act. This assessment was sought to be reopened by issuance of notice under section

Mitesh Singhania, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(2) Raipur, Central Revenue Building, Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 410/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur22 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.410/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Mitesh Singhania Singhania Bhawan, Subhas Road, Near Telghani Naka, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Avops1474P .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Raipur (C.G) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: None (Adjournment Application)For Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 143(1)Section 154Section 194DSection 80C(5)

addition involving legal interpretation and factual clarification falls beyond the scope of prima facie adjustments permissible under ub clause (0 to (vi) of section 143(1)(a). The impugned addition made by the CPC is bad in law. If at all the observation of the CPC had to be processed ... reopening of assessment u/s. 147 of the Act. 1.4 It is an established legal position that an addition made by the CPC under Section 143(1) based on Form 26AS is beyond its jurisdiction, as it required adjudication of legal provisions under Section 10(10D). CPC is only empowered

Waseem Alam, West Champaran vs. ITO, National E Assessment Centre, Delhi

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

ITA 17/PAT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna22 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.17/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Waseem Alam…...………………….....…..…………………....Appellant Bhawanipur Kursi Barawa, Sikta, West Champaran, Bihar-845307. [Pan: Alopa0369B] Vs. Ito, Nfac, Delhi…………..……….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sanjeev Kr. Anwar, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kumar, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 17, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 22, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 08.11.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2018-19 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.9,68,550. The Return Was Processed Under Section 143(1) Of The Act. Subsequently, The Case Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny Under The E- Assessment Scheme, With The Specific Issue Of Verification Of Large Deduction Claimed Under Section 57 Of The Act. Notice Under Section 143(2) & Subsequently Under Section 142(1) Was Issued To The Assessee. Although The Assessee Uploaded Certain Documents Electronically In Response, The Details Were Found To Be Incomplete. The

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 57

filed its return of income for the Assessment Year 2018-19 declaring total income of Rs.9,68,550. The return was processed under section 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the case was selected for limited scrutiny under the e- assessment scheme, with the specific issue of verification of large

Basant Satheesh, Angamaly vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Aluva

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 57/COCH/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144

IN THE INCOMETAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Kumarapuram Service Co-Operative Bank Limited No 2147, Karthikappally vs. ITO, Ward 2, Alappuzha

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

ITA 391/COCH/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year: 2021-22 Kumarapuram Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. .......... Appellant Kumarapuram Village, Thamalakkal P.O. Haripad, Alappuzha 690549 [Pan: Aaabk0740M] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Alappuzha .......... Respondent Appellant By: Shri Sabu, Ca Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 05.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.07.2025

For Appellant: Shri Sabu, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 80ASection 80P

Claiming deduction u/s. 80P without complying with the conditions laid down u/s. 80AC amounts to incorrect claim as defined in Explanation to section 143(1) of the Act. Accordingly, we do not find any illegality in the adjustment made by CPC while processing the return of income

Santosh Chaturvedi, Indore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax CPC, Bhopal Madhya Pradesh

ITA 697/IND/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Jul 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 143(1)Section 246ASection 249(2)Section 250Section 253Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, इंदौर न्यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Santosh Chaturvedi, Indore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bhopal

ITA 693/IND/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Jul 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 143(1)Section 246ASection 249(2)Section 250Section 253Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, इंदौर न्यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

The Kotla Bhari Milk Producers Society Ltd., Khanna vs. ITO, Khanna

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 381/CHANDI/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parveen Jindal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 249(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(b)

small cooperative engaged in supplying milk produced by its members, filed an appeal against an intimation order dated 05/10/2015 issued under Section 143(1) for AY 2014-15, which disallowed a deduction of Rs. 8,19,137/- claimed under Section 80P. The society argued that the disallowance was made without ... deduction, saying the society did not provide enough proof to claim it. The Ld. DR also pointed out that the intimation under Section 143(1) is done automatically, and if the society had any problems with it, they should have filed an appeal or correction in time which they failed

Cee Enn Estates Private Limited Barewal Sukhmani Enclave Ludhiana, Ludhiana vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(5) Ludhiana Rishi Nagar Ludhiana, Income Tax Officer Ludhiana Rishi Nagar Ludhina

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1178/CHANDI/2024[2023-2024]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 Jul 2025AY 2023-2024

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.N. Arora, Advocate (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 143(1)

opting for taxation under the concessional regime of section 115BAA of the Income Tax Act, 1961. However, while processing the return under section 143(1) on 21.05.2024, the Centralized Processing Centre (CPC), Bengaluru disallowed the assessee’s option under section 115BAA on the grounds that it failed to file Form ... assessee, dismissed the appeal. It was held that the grounds relating to lack of opportunity of being heard before the adjustment under section 143(1) were untenable, as the returned income had not been adjusted but accepted in full, only the tax computation differed due to the non-filing

Yardi Software India Private Limited, Pune vs. Assessing Officer, Jurisdiction Circle 12, Pune, Income Tax Department

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

ITA 549/PUN/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.549/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2022-23 Yardi Software India Private Vs. Acit, Circle-12, Pune. Limited, Second Floor, Sigma House, Senapati Bapat Road, Pune City, Pune, Shivaji Housing Society S.O.- 411016. Pan : Aaccr8107N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Miss Chaitee LondheFor Respondent: Shri Milind Debaje
Section 14Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI VINAY

Poladpur Taluka Prathamik Shikshak Sahkari Patphedhi Maryadit Poladpur Shik, Poladpur, Raigad vs. ITO, Ward 2, Panvel

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

ITA 1457/PUN/2025[2016 - 17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Jul 2025

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastava
Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)Section 69A

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

Shri Vasupujya Swami Maharaj Temple Trust, Pune vs. ITO (Exemption) Ward 1(2), Pune

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

ITA 1288/PUN/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Jul 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 11(3)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.1287/PUN/2025

Shri Ishwarlal Gulabchand Vardhamantap Ayambil Trust, Pune vs. ITO Ward 7(1), Pune

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

ITA 1287/PUN/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Jul 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 11(3)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.1287/PUN/2025

Prayank Vikram Dhaddha, Pune vs. DCIT(It), Circle-1, Pune

ITA 1248/PUN/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Jul 2025AY 2021-22
Section 10Section 143(1)Section 250

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण "एस एम सी” न्यायपीठ पुणेमें। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “SMC” :: PUNE BEFORE MS.ASTHA

Dattakala Shikshan Sanstha, Pune vs. Assessment Unit, I.Tax Dept, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2567/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), MS. ASTHA CHANDRA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)

allowed for statistical purposes. 6 ITA Nos. 2567 & 2459/PUN/2024, AY 2020-21 11. The appeal in ITA No. 2459/PUN/2024 is arising out of section 143(1) intimation order of the CPC. Vide our above order of even date in ITA No. 2567/PUN/2024, we have set aside the order

Dattakala Shikshan Sanstha, Pune vs. A.D.I.T, CPC, Bangaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2459/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), MS. ASTHA CHANDRA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)

allowed for statistical purposes. 6 ITA Nos. 2567 & 2459/PUN/2024, AY 2020-21 11. The appeal in ITA No. 2459/PUN/2024 is arising out of section 143(1) intimation order of the CPC. Vide our above order of even date in ITA No. 2567/PUN/2024, we have set aside the order

Shetkari Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Beed vs. DCIT(E) Circle, Aurangabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 2177/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2177/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Shetkari Shikshan Prasarak Vs. Dcit, Exemption Circle, Mandal, Aurangabad. Anand Bhavan, Nagar Road, At Post Tq Ashti, Dist. Beed- 414203. Pan : Aaets0130K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Prateek JhaFor Respondent: S/Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari &
Section 115Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 234ASection 234BSection 250(6)Section 80G

assessee is a trust furnished its return of income on 05 November 2016 declaring income at Rs.NIL. The return was processed under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS. Statutory notices under section 143(2) and 142(1) were issued

Manaksia Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle 4(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 470/KOL/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan &For Respondent: Shri Pradeep Dung Dung, DR
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)

Clause (b) of Section 158 BC by referring to Section 143(2) and (3) would appear to imply that the provisions of Section 143(1) are excluded. But Section 143(2) itself becomes necessary only where it becomes necessary to check the return, so that where block return conforms