← 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)

Vinodchandra Madhabhai Lavri, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 2(3)(4), Surat

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

ITA 151/SRT/2025[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Surat07 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Pophare, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 292C

Return of Income for the A.Y. 2011-12 on 30.03.2012 declaring total income of Rs. 2,20,350/-. The return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act and accepted the returned of income. The return was reopened based on the information during the course of search action

Vinodchandra Madhabhai Lavri, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 2(3)(4), Surat

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

ITA 150/SRT/2025[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Surat07 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Pophare, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 292C

Return of Income for the A.Y. 2011-12 on 30.03.2012 declaring total income of Rs. 2,20,350/-. The return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act and accepted the returned of income. The return was reopened based on the information during the course of search action

Vinodchandra Madhabhai Lavri, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 2(3)(4), Surat

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

ITA 149/SRT/2025[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Surat07 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Pophare, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 292C

Return of Income for the A.Y. 2011-12 on 30.03.2012 declaring total income of Rs. 2,20,350/-. The return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act and accepted the returned of income. The return was reopened based on the information during the course of search action

Morni Sarees Private Limited, Indore vs. Asst. Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the order of the CIT(A) is set aside, and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed”

ITA 910/IND/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Indore07 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

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

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 36Section 43B

anआयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, इंदौर "ायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT

Agriculture Producemarket Committee, Naigaon vs. Income Tax Officer, Nanded

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

ITA 49/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.49/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Abhay AvchatFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 10Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 5

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.49/PUN/2025

Anurag Sure, Hdyerabad vs. ITO (Int Taxn)-2, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 649/HYD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA, S VenugopalFor Respondent: Shri Pavitran Kumar J, Sr. AR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD “B” BENCH: HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANJUNATHA

Sri Modh Visa Gowbhuja Sajna, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Exemption Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

ITA 582/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Us (As Uploaded):

For Appellant: Shri B. SatyanarayanaFor Respondent: Shri. Gurpreet Singh
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 143Section 143(1)

Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi, dated 01/02/2025, which in turn arises from the intimation dated 18/05/2020 issued by the Centralized Processing Centre (CPC), Bengaluru under Section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, "the Act"). The assessee society has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal ... Corona virus pandemic. Hence this ground is dismissed. 6.2 As regards the ground regarding jurisdiction of CPC, it is seen that section 143(1)(a) of the I.T Act empowers CPC to adjust incorrect claims if such incorrect claim is apparent from any information in the return. It is seen

Yedukondalu Katreddy, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-12(1), Hyderabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 163/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Us:

For Appellant: Shri Y.V. Bhanu NarayanaFor Respondent: Shri Waseem UR Rehman
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 69C

declaring an income of Rs. 4,82,470/-. The return of income was initially processed as such under Section 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was selected for “limited scrutiny” through CASS for verifying the “Credit Card Payments”. 3. During the course of assessment proceedings

Indravati Devi Bagrodia Charitable Trust, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 1.1, Exemption, Kolkata

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 491/KOL/2025[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Jul 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: The Itat The Grounds Are Extracted For Reference: “1. For That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Ao Was Wrong And

Section 11Section 143(1)Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, KOLKATA SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER LT.A

Shri Ramasamy Jayakumar, Kanchipuram vs. DCIT, Non Corp. Circle-17(1), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 852/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.S.P. ChidambaramFor Respondent: Mr.Gautham S. Mukundan
Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 90

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी एबी टी. वक", "ाियक

Mangal Tirth Estate Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward-4(1), Chennai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 30/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:30/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Mangal Tirth Estate Ltd., Income Tax Officer, 769, Spencer Plaza, Anna Salai, Vs. Corporate Ward- 4(1), Mount Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 002. [Pan:Aaacm-4614-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. N. V. Balaji, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Anitha, Addl. C.I.T. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 14.05.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 07.07.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Filed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeal, Addl/ Jcit (A)-4, Hyderabad, For The Assessment Year 2020-21, Vide Order Dated 07.11.2024. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Company Filed Its Return Of Income For The A.Y.2020-21 On 17.11.2020 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.11,20,57,920/-. The Return Of Income Was Processed By The Ao, Cpc, Bangalore On 29.12.2021 & Raised A Demand Of Rs.93,79,350/- By Denying The Beneficial Tax Rate As Per Section 115Baa Of The Act & By Applying The Tax Rate Of 30%.

For Appellant: Shri. N. V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl. C.I.T
Section 115BSection 119(2)(b)Section 154

exercised. Importantly, tax has also been remitted/discharged at 22% in accordance with provisions of Section 115BAA. Secondly, there was a proceeding under Section 143(1) of the Act, wherein again there was no express indication that the taxes were sought to be levied at 30% rejecting the petitioner's request ... option to discharge taxes under Section 115BAA of the Act; (b) Payment of taxes at 22% by the petitioner and (c) Proceeding under Section 143(1) of the Act wherein it was proposed to tax @30%, without disclosing that the levy at higher rate @ 30% instead of 22% in terms

Vellala Krishnanand Arunkumar, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 360/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Ms. Shree Raksha, ARFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate, Standing Counsel for Revenue
Section 139(4)Section 139(9)Section 143(1)(a)Section 44A

Form No.26AS also. The assessee claimed TDS credit as per Form No.26AS and filed return of income. While processing the return under section 143(1)(a) of the Act, dated 30.10.2021, along with credit of TDS of Rs.2,91,767/ was allowed- instead of TDS of Rs.9

Estate of Satibai Tahilram Chellaram, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 23(1)6, Mumbai

In the result, a ground of appeal of the assessee for AY 2021-22 is

ITA 1428/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh

Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 254(1)

Appeals erred in not accepting the plea the charging of higher rate of tax by the CPC was beyond his power under section 143(1)(a) and he ought to have directed the CPC to charge proper tax in the intimation passed u/s 143(1)(a) of the Income ... Appeals erred is not upholding the ground up appeal that the CPC has acted beyond its powers under section 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act in applying the maximum marginal rate of tax which power is not granted while passing an intimation u/s 143(1

Estate of Satibai Tahilram Chellaram, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2391)(6), Mumbai

In the result, a ground of appeal of the assessee for AY 2021-22 is

ITA 1417/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jul 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh

Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 254(1)

Appeals erred in not accepting the plea the charging of higher rate of tax by the CPC was beyond his power under section 143(1)(a) and he ought to have directed the CPC to charge proper tax in the intimation passed u/s 143(1)(a) of the Income ... Appeals erred is not upholding the ground up appeal that the CPC has acted beyond its powers under section 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act in applying the maximum marginal rate of tax which power is not granted while passing an intimation u/s 143(1

Estate of Satibai Tahilram Chellaram, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 23(1)(6), Mumbai

In the result, a ground of appeal of the assessee for AY 2021-22 is

ITA 4757/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh

Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 254(1)

Appeals erred in not accepting the plea the charging of higher rate of tax by the CPC was beyond his power under section 143(1)(a) and he ought to have directed the CPC to charge proper tax in the intimation passed u/s 143(1)(a) of the Income ... Appeals erred is not upholding the ground up appeal that the CPC has acted beyond its powers under section 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act in applying the maximum marginal rate of tax which power is not granted while passing an intimation u/s 143(1

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 13(1), New Delhi, I.P. Estate vs. Logic Eastern (India) Private Limited, Noida, Uttar Pradesh

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 437/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2016-17] Deputy Commissioner Of Logic Eastern (India) Private Income Tax, Circle-13(1), Limited, Room No.316A, 3Rd Floor, Vs C-56/39, 5Th Floor, Sector-62, C.R. Building, I.P. Estate, Noida, Uttar Pradesh-201301 New Delhi-110002 Pan-Aaacl3539Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By Ms. Amisha S. Gupta, Cit(Dr) Respondent By None Date Of Hearing 07.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 07.07.2025 Order Per Brajesh Kumar Singh, Am

Section 143(2)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 37Section 40

hope that their return would not be picked up for scrutiny and they would be assessed on the basis of self assessment under section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and even if their case is selected for scrutiny, the can get away merely by paying

DCIT, Central Circle-3, New Delhi vs. Summit Promoters Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1771/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI S. RIFARU RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

Section 132Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 147Section 154Section 69C

facts. The assessee had filed its return of income on 30th October, 2017 declaring loss of Rs.2,45,692/- which stood processed under section 143(1) of the Act. The learned departmental authorities thereafter carried out the search and survey under section 132 r.w.s. 133A

All India Womens Conference Kanpur, Kanpur vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), Civil Lines Kanpur

ITA 510/LKW/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow04 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2022-23 All India Womens Conference V. The Income Tax Officer Kanpur Ward 1(1)(1) 16/4, Mahila Park, Civil Lines Civil Lines Sarsaiya Ghat, Kanpur Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aacta1200E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Swaran Singh, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 25.06.2024, Passed By The Addl/Jcit(A)-2, Kolkata For Assessment Year 2022-23. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Society Registered Under The Societies Registration Act Xxi Of 1860 & Running Working Women’S Hostel At Subsidized Rate Under The Name & Style Of ‘All India Womens Conference’, Kanpur. The Assessee-Society Is Also Registered Under Section 10Ac Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’). During The Year Under Consideration, The Assessee-Society E-Filed Its Return Of Income, Declaring Nil Income. The Assessee-Society During The Year Under Consideration Had Shown Gross Receipts Of Rs.10,52,829/- And

For Appellant: Shri Swaran Singh, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R
Section 10Section 10ASection 143(1)

religious purposes at Rs.10,19,724/- and the amount accumulated or set apart at Rs.32,755/-. The CPC, Bangalore passed Intimation Order under section 143(1) of the Act on 28.03.2023, disallowing the exemption claimed by the assessee under section 10(23C) of the Act, amounting to Rs.10 ... Addl./Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Kolkata has erred in law and on facts in sustaining the Intimation passed under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ignoring the facts that the same is without jurisdiction and Deputy Director of Income Tax, CPC Bengaluru has exceeded

Gujarat Mineral Development Corporation Limited, Khanji Bhavan vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Aayakar Bhawan(Vejalpur), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 651/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 80GSection 80I

income for the assessment year 2020–21 on 30.03.2021 declaring total income of Rs.1,90,01,26,570/-. The return was processed under section 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny under the Computer Aided Scrutiny Selection (CASS) system for multiple parameters, inter alia, claim

Asstt. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Mcfills Enterprises Private Limited, Ahmedabad

In the result, ITA No. 401/Ahd/2022 is partly allowed and ITA 402/Ahd/2022 is dismissed

ITA 402/AHD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleita Nos. 401 & 402/Ahd/2022 Assessment Year 2017-18 & 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT-D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(18)Section 32(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43(1)Section 43(6)

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “D” BENCH Before Dr. BRR Kumar, Vice President And Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member