← 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)

Sri Poddar Madal Bhavani Samity, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 1(3), Exemption, Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 325/KOL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.325/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Sri Poddar Madal Bhavani Samity……………………………..….……….Appellant Ground Floor, Mission Court, 25, R. N. Mukherjee Street, Kol-1. [Pan: Aabts8573R] Vs. Ito, Ward-1(3), Exemption, Kolkata.....................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri A. K. Tibrewal, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Kallol Mistry, Jcit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 13, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 14, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against An Order Dated 19.12.2024 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeal Addl/Jcit(A)-2 Guwahati [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Public Charitable Trust Registered U/S 12A Of The Act. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 31.05.2021 By Declaring Nil Taxable Income After Claiming Application Of Income For Charitable Purposes & Accumulation U/S 11(2) Of The Act. The Cpc, Bengaluru Issued An Intimation U/S 143(1) Of The Act Dated 30.11.2021 By Disallowing The Assessee’S Claim Of Application Of Income Of Rs.13,10,039/- & Accumulation U/S 11 Of The Act At Rs.1,54,072/-. Consequently, The Entire Amount Was Treated As

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 44A

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH KOLKATA Before Shri Sonjoy

Srinivasan Rajasekaran, Hosur vs. ITO, Ward-1, Hosur

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

ITA 2914/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2914/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Srinivasan Rajasekaran, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 70G – 5, Seenu Complex, Ward 1, Indira Nagar, Hosur 635 109. Hosur. [Pan:Aeepr3817E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 28.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14.05.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 07.10.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Ground No. 1 Raised By The Assessee Is General In Nature & Requires No Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 68

after claiming deduction of ₹.1,50,000/- under Chapter VI-A of the Act. The return filed by the assessee was processed under section 143(1) of the Act vide intimation dated 25.09.2018. Later on, the case has been selected for limited scrutiny towards cash deposit. During the course

Income Tax Officer, Non-Corporate Ward 19(4), Chennai vs. Parvathy Ayyavu, Chennai

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

ITA 1352/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1352/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Parvathy Ayyavu, 35/17, 11Th Avenue, Ashok Nagar, Non Corporate Ward 19(4), Chennai. Chennai 600 083. [Pan:Afgpa2173P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri P. Krishna Kumar, Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : None सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 06.05.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14.05.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 31.01.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/ National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. We Note That This Appeal Was Filed On 07.05.2024 & After Scrutiny; The Registry Fixed The Appeal For Hearing On 29.07.2024. Accordingly, A Notice Dated 12.06.2024 Issued To The Respondent-

For Appellant: Shri P. Krishna Kumar, JCITFor Respondent: None
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

flat promoter. The assessee filed her return of income declaring a total income of ₹.5,84,860/-, which was accepted vide intimation under section 143(1) of the Act. Thereafter, under scrutiny, notices under section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued. According to the Assessing officer

Ramesh Dungarshi Shah, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Inocme Tax, Circle-3, Mumbai

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

ITA 1220/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri. Girish Agarwal, Am Ramesh Dungarshi Shah Deputy Commissioner Of Income 108, Shreedhar Apartment, Maulana Tax, Circle – 3, Kalyan Vs. 2Nd Floor, Rani Mansion, Murbad Azad Road, Dombivali, East, Thane – 421201. Road, Kalyan West – 421301. Pan/Gir No. Aavps0931K (Assessee) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. Devendra Jain, Adv. (Virtually) : Shri. Asif Karmali (Sr. Dr) Respondent By : 14.02.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 14.05.2025 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee, Challenging The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi (‘Ld. Cit(A)’ For Short), National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short) Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act'), Pertaining To The Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ For Short) 2015-16. 2. It Is Observed That The Assessee Has Filed This Present Appeal With A Delay Of 47 Days Beyond The Period Of Limitation For Which The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condoning The Delay Along With The Reasons Specified For The Delay. After Hearing The Rival Contentions, We Deem It Fit To Condone The Delay In Filing The Appeal For The Reason That There Was ‘Sufficient Cause’ & Bonafide Reasons For The Delay. Delay Condoned.

For Appellant: Shri. Devendra Jain, Adv. (Virtually)For Respondent: 14.02.2025
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 23(1)(a)Section 23(4)(b)Section 23(5)Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM AND SHRI. GIRISH AGARWAL, AM Ramesh