“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)

Annai Trust, Krishnagiri vs. ITO, Exemptions Ward, Salem

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

ITA 780/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.780/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2018-19 Annai Trust, The Income Tax Officer, D.No.25/235, Jinna Street, Exemptions Ward, Kaveripattinam(Viil) (Po), Salem Krishnagiri, Tamil Nadu 635 112. [Pan: Aadta6748A] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri Girish Kumar, 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 Girish Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Anitha, Addl.CIT

Section 10Section 11Section 143(1)(a)

receipts and not gross receipts. It was also simultaneously argued that the impugned disallowance, made in its case invoking provisions of section 143(1)(a) of the Act, per se is inadmissible given statutory prohibition qua any such addition u/s 143(1)(a) of the Act. Reliance was placed upon ... would have expired on 31.03.2015 which was just few days before the return was processed on 12.03.2015 under Section 143(1) of the Act. 24. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Formica India Division, Bombay, Burma Trading Corporation Limited Vs. Collector of Central Excise and others, 1995 Supp

M/S. Rmz Infinity (Chennai) Pvt. Ltd., Kanchipuram vs. PCIT-4, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 511/CHNY/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Jun 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.511/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2009-10 M/S.Rmz Infinity(Chennai) Pvt. Ltd, The Principal Commissioner Of No.110, Mount Poonamallee Road, Income Tax-4, Porur, Porur S.O, Circle-1, Ltu, Kanchipuram Dist, Chennai Tamil Nadu-600 116. [Pan: Aaacd2287R]

For Appellant: Shri B.Ramakrishnan, F.C.AFor Respondent: Ms.E.Pavuna Sundari, CIT

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 263

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, ‘ए’ न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI श्री एबी टी. वर्की, न्यायिर्क

Vijay Enterprises, Mumbai vs. Dy, Director of Income Tax Circle 41(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3109/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Am Vijay Enterprises Dy. Director Of Income Tax, Cpc Ground Floor, Eesha Kripa Building, Circle 41(3)(1), Kautilya Bhavan, Vs. Brahman Sabha Lane, Malad (W), Bkc, Mumbai-400 051 Mumbai-400 064 Pan/Gir No. Aaafv 2622 D (Appellant) (Respondent) : Appellant By : Shri Rajeshkumar Gandhi Respondent By : Ms. Kavitha Kaushik (Sr. Dr) Date Of Hearing : 11.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.06.2025

For Appellant: Shri Rajeshkumar GandhiFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik (Sr. DR)

Section 143(1)Section 80

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VP AND SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, AM

New Bombay Merchants Educational Foundation, Navi Mumbai vs. ACIT, CPC Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of assesseeis allowed

ITA 2690/MUM/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jun 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Smt. Renu Jauhri(Physical Hearing) New Bombay Merchants Educational Acit (E),-2(2), Mumbai Foundation, Vs The Sugar Market Assc. 1St Floor, Central Facility Bldg Fam Market 1, Phase 2, Turbhe Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra-400703. [Pan No. Aaatn2984J] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Pradeep Kapasi Ca Revenue By Ms. Sujatha Iyangar, Sr. Dr Date Of Institution Of Appeal 18.04.2025 Date Of Hearing 02.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 11.06.2025 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act

Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 154Section 2(15)Section 234BSection 246A

processing return of income of assessee. The CPC determined total income of Rs. 3.56 crore without issuing mandatory notice as required under section 143(1)(a) of proposed adjustment and seeking no objection of assessee. On downloading the order of CPC, the assessee realised that exemption/application under section

Mahakoshal Refractories Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 15(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6454/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeassessment Year : 2020-21 Mahakoshal Refractories Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, Income Tax-15(1)(1), E-309, Crystal Plaza, Vs. Mumbai. Opposite Infinity Mall, Andheri West, Mumbai-400053. Pan : Aaecm4903B (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : None For Revenue : Shri Annavaram Kosuri Date Of Hearing : 02-06-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 11-06-2025 Order Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld.Addl/Jcit(A)-Panchkula[„Ld.Cit(A)‟], Dated 16-10-2024, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2020-21, Wherein The Assesseehas Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: NONEFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram Kosuri

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

income was made and the returned income as such was accepted, but the learned CIT(Appeals) took into account income intimated under section 143(1).” 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assesseefiled its return of income declaring a total income of Rs.30,00,39,160/- which ... section 143(3) of the act, it is only that assessment order that may be enforced against the assesses. The intimation issued under section 143(1)(a) of the act, prior in time lost its effect and stood subsumed in the subsequent assessment order. Therefore, it could never be looked

Afzal Alimohammad Latif, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-4(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands

ITA 6150/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon'Ble Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 153ASection 153CSection 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "A" BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & HON'BLE SHRI

I.P. Constructions Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO -12(4), New Delhi

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

ITA 5531/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. I.P. Constructions Private Vs. Acit, Limited, 210 First Floor, Phool Circle-12(2), Singh Market Main, Delhi Vikas Marg, New Delhi Pin 1100 92 Pan No. Aabci4548K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Chandra Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 56(2)(viib)

case are that assessee company e-filed its return of income on 13.10.2015 declaring income of Rs.6,85.120/- which was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act on 12.11.2015. The case was selected for limited scrutiny under Section 143(3) of the Act under following parameters: “1. Large share

Zuari Industries Limited (Formerly Known As Zuari Global Ltd), Zuarinagar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1(1), Panaji

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

ITA 71/PAN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji10 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. Nos.71/Pan/2025 (A.Y. 2018-19 ) Zuari Industries Limited, Vs National Faceless Jai Kisaan Bhawan, Assessment Centre, Zuarinagar, Delhi. Mormugo, Goa-403728. Pan/Gir No. Aaacz0306P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By Shri.Ankit Goyal.Ar Revenue By Shri.Captain Pradeep Arya.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 10.06.2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 11.06.2025 Order Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Appeal Is Filed By The Assesse Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Delhi /Cit(A) Passed U/Sec 143(3) & U/Sec 250 Of The Act. The Assesse Has Raised The Grounds Of Appeal Challenging The Order Of The Cit(A) Sustaining The Disallowance U/Sec14Aof The Act & Not Condoning The Delay In Filling The Appeal. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That, The Assesse Company Is Engaged In The Business. The Assesse Has Filed The Return Of Income For A.Y.2018-19 On 29.11.2018 Disclosing

Section 14A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PANAJI BENCH PANAJI BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI G D PADMAHSHALI

Abdulrasheed Arachamveettil, Thrissur vs. DCIT Circle 1(1)& Tps Thrissur, Thrissur

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 374/COCH/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin10 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaassessment Years: 2018-19 Abdul Rasheed Arachamveettil Dcit, Circle-1(1) & Tps V. Thrissur No.2, Rajash Manzil, Chavakkad, Thrissur, Kerala – 680506. Pan : Abnpa4382K. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : None Respondent By : Smt. Leena Lal, Snr Ar Date Of Hearing : 04.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.06.2025 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against An Order Dated 05.05.2025 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’).

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Snr AR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250

Income From Business of Rs.(-)7,01,514/-, (iv) Income From Other Sources of Rs.6,69,352/-. The Assessing Officer passed order under section 143(1) of the Act by determining income of Rs.3,30,77,510/- without considering the business loss of Rs.7,01,514 claimed by the assessee

Parisons Estates and Industries Private Limited, Calicut vs. ACIT Circle 1(1), Kozhikode

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

ITA 171/COCH/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin10 Jun 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Surendranath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Snr. AR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH : COCHIN BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K

Health Foundation & Research Centre, Dahod vs. The ACIT, Circle-2, Exemption, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 483/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Sakar Sharma, ARFor Respondent: Shri Hargovind Singh, Sr.DR

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 12A(1)(b)Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

jurisdictional Commissioner as contemplated under section 119(2)(b). It was further submitted that the return of the assessee was not processed under section 143(1), and the assessment was completed under section 143(3), thereby requiring a stricter standard of compliance. The DR distinguished the judgment in Anjana Foundation ... ground that in that case, the return had been processed under section 143(1), whereas in the present case, the audit report was made available at the time of scrutiny assessment. 8. In rebuttal, the AR clarified that the audit had been completed in time, and the only lapse

Ash Education Trust, Mehsana vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1 (Exemption), Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1831/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Thakkar, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Sanjay Kumar Lal, CIT DR

Section 11Section 143(1)Section 154

declaring loss of Rs. 71,74,077/-. The return of income of the assessee trust was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act, disallowing the exemption claimed by the assessee under Section 11 of the Act, amounting to Rs. 6,03,14,738/-. The assessee filed rectification ... delay had not been granted by the Ld. CIT(A), apparently there was no mistake in the order passed by Assessing Officer under Section 143(1) of the Act / 154 of the Act, so as to call for any interference. However, on going through the facts of the case

Ash Education Trust, Mehsana vs. The Dy. CIT, Circle-1 (Exemption), Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1830/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Thakkar, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Sanjay Kumar Lal, CIT DR

Section 11Section 143(1)Section 154

declaring loss of Rs.71,74,077/-. The return of income of the assessee trust was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act, disallowing the exemption claimed by the assessee under Section 11 of the Act, amounting to Rs.6,03,14,738/-. The assessee filed rectification application before the Assessing ... delay had not been granted by the Ld. CIT(A), apparently there was no mistake in the order passed by Assessing Officer under Section 143(1) of the Act / 154 of the Act, so as to call for any interference. However, on going through the facts of the case

L K Sons Alloy Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. ACIT, Circle-9, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 45/PUN/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Jun 2025

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Ms. Diksha AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

filed its return on 28.09.2011 declaring total income of Rs.61,77,979/-. After processing of return of income under section 143(1) of the Act, the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS. The Ld. Assessing Officer (“AO”) completed the assessment on 12.03.2014 u/s 143(3) of the Act assessing

Cricketmaharashtra@Yahoo.Com, Pune vs. ACIT(E), Pune

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

ITA 1724/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri C.H. NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Prashant Gadekar

Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “ए” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA

Pramod Lakra, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -11(1), Kolkata vs. Philips Carbon Black Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2459/KOL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jun 2025AY 2021-22