← 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)

DCIT-2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Dbs Bank India Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 6246/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokardcit-2(3)(1) Dbs Bank India Limited Room No. 552, 5Th Floor, 1St Floor, Express Towers, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aagcd 5838 A (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Fenil Bhatt Respondent By : Shri Annavram Kosuri Date Of Hearing : 10.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.02.2026 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: Captioned Appeal By The Department, Arises Out Of Order Dated 08.07.2025 Of Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax (Addl. Cit For Short), Kolkata, Pertaining To Assessment Year (A.Y. For Short) 2021-22. 2. Substantive Grounds Raised By The Department Are As Under: 1. "Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld.Cit(A) Is Correct In Holding The Power In Quashing The Adjustment Made U/S 143(1)(A) Of The Act Merely On The Ground That Prior Intimation For Adjustment Was Not Given To The Assessee. In Doing The Ld.Cit(A) Failed To Appreciate That The Intimation Could Not Have Been Quashed Merely On A Procedural Irregularity?" 2. "Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld.Cit(A) Is Correct In Quashing The Adjustment Made U/S 143(1)(A) Of The Act, Disregarding The Fact That The Consequential Grounds No. 2 To 6 Were Adjudicated On Merits, Thus, Adjudication In Ground No 1 Becomes Contradictory To The Adjudication In Ground No. 2 To 6 & Resulting In Deletion Of Adjustment Of Rs. 2,88,06,410/-?" 3. As Could Be Seen From The Grounds Raised, The Grievance Of The Department Is With Regard To Deletion Of Adjustment Made Of Rs.2,88,06,410/- By The Centralized Processing

For Appellant: Shri Fenil BhattFor Respondent: Shri Annavram Kosuri
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

assessee that without issuing a show cause notice, proposing the adjustment in terms with the proviso under section 143(1)(a) of the Act, the CPC could not have gone ahead to make the adjustments straight away. The second contention of the assessee was, the bad debts recovered was duly ... 143(1)(a) of the Act, the CPC had issued any intimation to the assessee in terms with the first proviso to section 143(1)(a) of the Act enabling the assessee to submit its response. That being the factual position on record, we do not find any infirmity

Happy Suppliers Pvt. Ltd., (Merged With Rishi Securities & Finance Private Limited), Kolkata vs. ACIT, Central Circle 3(1), Kolkata

In the result, both the captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2578/KOL/2025[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Feb 2026AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.2577 & 2578/Kol/2025 (Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2021-22) Happy Suppliers Pvt. Ltd (Merged With Rishi Securities & Finance Private Limited)……….……….……Appellant Octavius Centre, 1St Floor, 15B, Hemant Basu Sarani, Kol-1. [Pan: Aabch9212M] Vs. Acit, Central Circle-3(1), Kolkata….……………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Lata Goyal, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sandip Sarkar, Jcit- Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 28, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 12, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: Both The Present Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against Separate Orders Dated 08.09.25 & 28.08.2025 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption)-21, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(E)’] U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Respectively. Since Both The Appeals Relate To The Assessee & Facts Are Similar, Therefore, These Appeals Were Heard Together & We Are Going To Dispose Of These Appeals By Passing A Consolidated Order. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Relevant A.Y Declaring Nil Income. A Search & Seizure

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(x)Section 69Section 69A

assessee SPIL was a joint venture between SMC and MSIL. It filed its return declaring certain taxable income. The return was processed under section 143(1) and then picked up for scrutiny. Notices under section 143(2) were issued. Subsequently, the High Court passed an order approving the Scheme