← 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)

Smt. Nishita Nandish, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

ITA 1615/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Shri.Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 132(4)Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 151Section 153CSection 234A

IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI. SOUNDARARAJAN K, JUDICIAL

Smt. Nishita Nandish, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

ITA 1614/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Shri.Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 132(4)Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 151Section 153CSection 234A

IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI. SOUNDARARAJAN K, JUDICIAL

Jijau Shaikshanik Va Samajik Sanstha Zadpoli, Mumbai vs. ITO Exemption Ward, Thane

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 858/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

Section 10ASection 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 139Section 143(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘F’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITO-41(1)(3), Mumbai vs. Mulchand Ramajor Gupta, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 493/MUM/2025[2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2025

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 143(1)Section 144Section 148Section 254(1)Section 69C

filed its return of income for A.Y. 2011-12 on 30.09.2011, declaring income of Rs. 5,70,185/-. Initially return was proceeded under section 143(1). Subsequently, case of assessee was reopened on the basis of information from DGIT Investigation wing, which was based on the report of Sales

Lintas Employees Hobbies and Craft Trust, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 22(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1802/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 10(15)Section 10(35)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250

addition can be made u/s.143(1) 8. The learned AO/CPC erred in making any addition which is beyond the scope of section 143(1). 9. The learned AO/CPC erred in making an adjustment in an Intimation Order u/s.143(1) although the same should have been a matter of scrutiny proceedings

Lintas Employees Hobbies and Craft Trust, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 22(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1801/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Ms. Priya Gada, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Kiran Unavekar, Ld. Sr. D.R
Section 10(15)Section 10(35)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250

addition can be made u/s.143(1) 8. The learned_AO/CPC erred in making any addition which is beyond the scope of section 143(1). 9. The learned AO/CPC erred in making an adjustment in an Intimation Order u/s.143(1) although the same should have been a matter of scrutiny proceedings

China Kunlun Contracting and Engineering Corporation, Mumbai vs. DDIT (CPC), Bengaluru

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

ITA 3778/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Ms Smita Joshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash (SR. DR)
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 54

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT

DCIT 2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Zensar Technologies Ltd, Mumbai

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 and 2012-13 stands partly allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue for the assessment year 2012-13

ITA 2915/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt.Renu Jauhri ()

Section 10ASection 234CSection 32

said case, the Tribunal has held that interest on refund under Section 244A(1) granted to the assessee in the proceedings under Section 143(1)(a) would be assessable in the year in which it is granted and not in the year in which proceedings under Section 143(1

Zensar Technologies Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle-2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment

ITA 2445/MUM/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt. Renu Jauhri ()

Section 10ASection 234CSection 32

said case, the Tribunal has held that interest on refund under Section 244A(1) granted to the assessee in the proceedings under Section 143(1)(a) would be assessable in the year in which it is granted and not in the year in which proceedings under Section 143(1

Zensar Technologies Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle - 2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment

ITA 4307/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt.Renu Jauhri ()

Section 10ASection 234CSection 32

said case, the Tribunal has held that interest on refund under Section 244A(1) granted to the assessee in the proceedings under Section 143(1)(a) would be assessable in the year in which it is granted and not in the year in which proceedings under Section 143(1

Hardeep Dalal, Sonepat vs. ITO Ward 35(5), New Delhi

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

ITA 3430/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Shivam Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 250Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.3430/DEL/2023 (Assessment Year

Pragya Savita, Jabalpur vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1), Jabalpur, Jabalur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 21/JAB/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur22 May 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2021-22 Pragya Savita, Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of 1197-A, Sadar, Modi Bada, Cantt, Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh-482001 Jabalpur Pan:Axyps7485A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Ashok Tiwari, Advocate Revenue By: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.05.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Jcit(A)-2, Vadodara Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated 27.10.2023, Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee That Was Filed Against The Order Of The Adit, Cpc, Bengaluru Under Section 143(1) Dated 17.12.2022. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. That The Learned Cit (A) Nafc Was Wrong In Law For Not Allowing The Deduction For Payment Of Rs. 56,39,017/- Under Section 36(1)(Vi) On Account Of Employee Contribution Of Epf & Esic Amount. Whereas The Assessee Had Deposited The Employee Contribution Of Epf & Esic On Or Before Due Date For Furnishing Return Of Income Under Sub-Section (1) Of Section 139 Of Income Tax Act, 1961. Employer Is Entitled For Deduction. 2. That The Both Employee Contribution Epf Rs.49,38,777/- & Esic Rs.70,0240/- Total Rs. 59,39,107/-Which Has Been Deposited With A Small Delay Due To Unavoidable Circumstances & Covid-19. Whereas The Assessee Had Deposited The Employee Contribution Before Filing Of The Return.

For Appellant: Sh. Ashok Tiwari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 250Section 36(1)(vi)

dated 27.10.2023, dismissing the appeal of the assessee that was filed against the order of the ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru under section 143(1) dated 17.12.2022. The grounds of appeal are as under:- “1. That the learned CIT (A) NAFC was wrong in law for not allowing the deduction for payment

Global Foundation for Medical Educational & Research, Jablpur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(2), Jabalpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 188/JAB/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur22 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Dhiraj Ghai, FCAFor Respondent: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. DR
Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 154Section 250

Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 17.10.2024 dismissing the appeal of the assessee against the order of the ADIT, CPC under section 143(1) dated 5.02.2021. The grounds of appeal are as under:- “1. On the facts & circumstances of the case, Ld. JCIT(A) erred in ignoring the fact that demand

Women Organisation for Socio Cultural Awarness, Keonjhar vs. ITO, Exemptions, Cuttack

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

ITA 67/CTK/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack22 May 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 119(2)(b)Section 139Section 143(1)Section 250

raised a demand in the total amount of Rs. 6,99,70,607 in the Intimation under section 143(1) of the Act vide DIN: CPC/2223/B7/410451517 dated 29.12.2023 together with Demand Reference No: 2023202237232529401T 05. That aggrieved by the computation of income and the demands raised as stated in Para ... assessee found it expedient to prefer this appeal before the Hon'ble Tribunal seeking appropriate relief against the computation of its income under section 143(1) of the IT Act. Thereafter, the assessee made over the papers to Sri B.V. Ranganath Swamy. Advocate, Cuttack on 04.01.2025 who took 10 days

Sadhana Foundation, Bhubaneswar vs. ITO (Exemption) Bhubaneswar, Bhubaneswar

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

ITA 166/CTK/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack22 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 10Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250

appeal order that the return of income was not filed by the assessee. However, it is noted that an intimation under section 143(1) was issued on 31 March 2019 in which the date of filing the return of income is mentioned as 24 September 2017. Aggrieved with the intimation ... assessment year and the assessee had claimed exemption under section 10(23C) of the Act which was not allowed in the intimation under section 143(1) of the Act. The Ld. Addl./Joint CIT(A) dismissed the appeal as the same was delayed by 900 days

Salva Welfare Trust, Pandikkad vs. ITO, Exemption Ward, Kozhikode

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

ITA 864/COCH/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 May 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm Assessment Year: 2021-22 Salva Welfare Trust .......... Appellant Valluvangad South, Pandikkd, Malappuram 676521 [Pan: Aagts6013H] Vs. The Income Tax Officer (Exemptions) .......... Respondent Kozhikode Appellant By: ------- None ------- Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 19.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.05.2025

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 143(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM AND SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV, JM

Maruti Keshavrao Didhore, Aurangabad vs. Assistant Comissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1, Aurangabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 449/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda, Vice- & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Pathak &For Respondent: Shri Ambarnath Bhimrao Khule-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 17(3)(i)Section 89

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “SMC” BENCH : PUNE BEFORE SHRI RAMA KANTA PANDA, VICE-PRESIDENT AND Ms. ASTHA

Archita Trust, Ichalkaranji vs. ITO (Exemption Ward, Kolhapur)

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1711/PUN/2024[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 May 2025AY 2022-2023

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda, Vice- & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. Shingte, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde, DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 164

1,62,942/-, paid the total tax amounting to Rs. 42,36,488/-. The return of the assessee was processed by CPC under section 143(1) of the Act accepting the income of Rs. 1,18,07,380/- returned by the assessee and calculating the tax liability ... reprocessing of return. However, rectification order under section 154 was passed again calculating tax as per intimation under section 143(1) of the Act determining total taxes paid of Rs. 50,68,976/- resulting in increase of Rs. 82,905/- and refund of Rs. 22,030/- . On appeal against such

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Jalna vs. Nishatbegum Syed Baba Rasool Patel, Parbhani

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1351/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18 Ito, Ward – 1, Jalna Nishatbegum Syed Baba Rasool Patel Patel Show Company, Vs. Dr. Ambedkar Road, Parbhani – 431401 Pan: Abxpp9642B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nikhil S Pathak Department By : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 13-05-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 22-05-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 115BSection 131Section 133ASection 133A(1)Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 69Section 69C

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

Purotech Merchants Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-9(3), Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 413/KOL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 5

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ “डी’’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH: KOLKATA "ी राजेश कुमार