← 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)

Jagruti Co Op Hsg Soc Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward (197)(6), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 372/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Jagruti Co Op Hsg Soc Ito Ward –(197)(6) Ltd. Cpc Bangaluru, L.J. Road Mahim, Vs. 560500. Mumbai-400016. Pan: Aaaat9842L (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Pratik Jain, Ld. A.R. Revenue By : Shri Kavan Limbasiya, Ld. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 12.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.06.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 19.11.2024, Impugned Herein, Passed By The Addl/Jcit (A) (In Short Ld. Addl/Joint Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2014-15. 2. In This Case, The Intimation/Order U/S. 143(1) Of The Act Was Issued On Dated 20.05.2015 By The Ito Ward-(197) (6) Mumbai, Whereby The Deduction Claimed By The Assessee U/S. 80(2)(D) Of The Act Amounting To Rs. 7,36,459/- Earned On Its Investment & Saving Bank Account Maintained With Saraswat Co-Operative Bank & The Nkgsb Co-Operative Bank Was Disallowed. The Assessee Against The Said Intimation Dated 20.05.2015 Filed A Rectification Application U/S. 154 Of The Act, However, No Order For Rectification Has Ever Been Passed By The Cpc. The Assessee On Realizing Its 2 M/S. Jagruti Co Op Hsg Soc Ltd. Mistake Challenged The Said Intimation U/S. 143(1) Dated 25.05.2025 By Filing First Appeal On Dated 12.06.2024 But With The Delay Of More Than 9 Years. The Ld. Addl/Joint Commissioner By Considering The Peculiar Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Ultimately Declined To Entertain The Request For Condonation Of Delay & Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee In Limine Without Making Any Discussion On Merit Or On Any Other Aspect.

For Appellant: Shri Pratik Jain, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Kavan Limbasiya, Ld. D.R
Section 14Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 80(2)(d)Section 80P(2)(d)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2014

Quent Chem, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

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

ITA 6914/MUM/2024[2023-2024]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jun 2025AY 2023-2024

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeassessment Year : 2023-24 Quent Chem, Deputy Commissioner Of 101, Shiv Dutta, Income Tax, Topiwala Lane, Vs. Circle-41(4)(1), Goregaon West, Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai-400104. Bandra Kurla Complex, Pan : Aaafq3430G Mumbai-400051. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Bhavya Sundesha For Revenue : Shri Annavaram Kosuri Date Of Hearing : 09-06-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12-06-2025 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [„Ld.Cit(A)‟], Dated 30-10-2024, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2023-24, Wherein The Assessee Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Assessing Officer In Computing Income From Business Or Profession Of Rs.3,72,70,389/-. The Assessing Officer Has Added An Income Of Rs.78,61,560/- In The Computation Sheet By Passing An Order U/S 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. This Amount Refers To The Interest Paid To The Partners By The Partnership Firm. This Interest Of Rs.78,61,558/- Has Been Correctly Disclosed In The Computation Of Income & Also In The Income Tax Return.

For Appellant: Shri Bhavya SundeshaFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram Kosuri
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 234BSection 234CSection 250Section 40

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “D” BENCH : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANIKESH

Eco Vision Properties Private Limited, Thrissur, Kerala vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1) & Tps, Thrissur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 59/COCH/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Jun 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaassessment Years: 2020-21 Eco Vision Properties Pvt Ltd Dcit, Circle-1(1) & Tps, V. Thirissur Edattukaran House, Varandarapilly, Thrissur, Kerala- 680303. Pan : Aadce2329J. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Vipin K K, Ca Respondent By : Smt. Leena Lal, Snr Ar. Date Of Hearing : 03.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.06.2025 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed Under Section 154 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961, By The Cpc, Bengaluru & Confirmed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), For The Assessment Year 2020–21 Vide Order Dated 28.11.2024. 2. The Primary Grievance Of The Assessee Is The Enhancement Of The Tax Rate From 25% To 30% By The Cpc Under Section 154, Despite The Assessee Being Otherwise Eligible For The Lower Tax Rate In Terms Of The Finance Act, 2019. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Domestic Company Engaged In Business & Had Filed Its Return Of Income

For Appellant: Shri Vipin K K, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Snr AR
Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154

However, the assessee inadvertently failed to file Form 10-IC electronically along with the return of income. Consequently, while processing the return under section 143(1) of the Act, CPC Bengaluru denied the benefit under section 115BAA of the Act and computed the tax liability at the rate ... allowed the benefit 4 Eco Vision Properties Pvt Ltd of section 115BAA of the Act. The CPC, while processing the return under section 143(1), initially applied the 25% rate of tax, which is the default rate for domestic companies having turnover not exceeding ₹400 crore in the relevant previous

Sadish Paul, Pondicherry vs. DCIT, Ward-1, Puducherry

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 787/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.787/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2017-18 Sadish Paul, Deputy Commissioner Of Income No.19, First Cross, Priyadarshini Nagar, Tax, Gorimedu, Circle-1, Pondicherry-605006 Pondicherry. [Pan: Awxpp6586H) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri N.V.Krishnan, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms.Anitha, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11 .06.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Shri N.V.Krishnan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(vi)Section 154

1) has been made on the basis of information available in 26AS statement. The Ld.CIT(A) also held that within the meanings of section 143(1)(vi) of the Act the Ld.AO was well within his rights to make the impugned addition of Rs.12 lakhs. He also concluded that there ... that an assesse aggrieved by orders passed by Income Tax Authorities under various sections are entitled to file appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). Section 143(1) is one such section included in section 246(1)(a) and reads as under:.. 246. Appealable orders.—(1) Subject to the provisions