“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)

Venetian Ldf Projects LLP, Gurgaon vs. ACIT Circle-4(1), Gurgaon

In the result, grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3533/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(2)

ITA No. 3533/Del/2025 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT

Priyadarshani Mahila Co-Op Cr. Society Ltd, Belagavi vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

ITA 32/PAN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji30 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 032/Pan/2025 Assessment Year : 2019-20 Priyadarshani Mahila Co-Op. Society Ltd. At Post: Kognoli, Ta.: Nippani Dist. Belagavi. Pan : Aabap2582L . . . . . . . Appellant

For Appellant: None for the AssesseeFor Respondent: Mr Sureshkumar C.B.[‘Ld. DR’]

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 24Section 250Section 80ASection 80P

order of intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act’? To settle this question, it is apt deal with relevant clause (v) of section 143(1)(a) of the Act which deal with the power of Ld. CPC at the relevant period passing intimation order was as; (v) disallowance of deduction

Khimji Haridas Modi Kautumbik Trust, Station Road vs. ITO Exemption WD 2 Rajkot, Rajkot

In the result, ground raised by the assessee in both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 80/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.79&80/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19 & 2019-20)

For Appellant: Ms. Janvi Shah, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav , Ld. Sr. (DR)

Section 154

ITA Nos. 79-80/Rjt/2025 A.Ys. 18-19 & 1-20 Khimji Haridas Modi Kautumbik Trust IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE

Khimji Haridas Modi Kautumbik Trust, Station Road vs. ITO Exemption WD 2 Rajkot, Rajkot

In the result, ground raised by the assessee in both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 79/RJT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.79&80/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19 & 2019-20)

For Appellant: Ms. Janvi Shah, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav , Ld. Sr. (DR)

Section 154

ITA Nos. 79-80/Rjt/2025 A.Ys. 18-19 & 1-20 Khimji Haridas Modi Kautumbik Trust IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE

Shri Nidhi Credit Co-Oprative Society Limited, Rajkot vs. ITO 3(1)(1), Rajkot

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 936/RJT/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Apr 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Shr Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.936/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri J.R. Mankodi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. (DR)

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

ITA No.936/Rjt/2024 A.Y. 14-15 Sh.Nidhi Credit Co-Op Society Ltd. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT

Lalitaben Vikas Foundation, Rajkot vs. ITO Exemption WD 1, Rajkot

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

ITA 882/RJT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.882/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2017-18) Lalitaben Vikas Foundation, Income Tax Officer, C/O Charma Shilp, Ward-1(Exemption), New Aaykar Bhawan, Vs Rajkot-360 001 Rajkot-360 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.:Aaatl2672 F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri G.R. Sanghavi, Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 12/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/04/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Dr. Arjunlal Saini Am; Captioned Appeal Filed By Assessee Pertaining To Assessment Year 2017- 18, Is Directed Against Order Passed By Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeal)/Addl/Jcit(A)-1, Mumbai, Vide Order Dated 04.10.2024, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Centralized Processing Center (Cpc), Bangalore/Assessing Officer Dated 09.03.2019 U/S 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. At The Outset Itself, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Assailed The Impugned Order By Contending That The Assessee Could Not Represent His Case Before Ld. Cit(A) & The Order Being An Ex-Parte Order, Stood Vitiated On Account Of Violation Of Principle Of Natural Justice. The Learned Counsel For The Assessee, Submitted That There Was Delay In Filing The Appeal Before The Ld. Cit(A) By 44 Days. The Assessee Has Explained The Reasons Of Such Delay & Sufficient Cause For Such Delay, Stating That Assessment Order Itself Was Not Received On Time

For Appellant: Shri G.R. Sanghavi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)

ITA NO. 882/Rjt/2024 A.Y. 17-18 Lalitaben Vikas Foundation IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH(SMC), RAJKOT BEFORE

Annie Joseph, Kottayam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Kottayam

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

ITA 237/COCH/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2021-22 Annie Joseph .......... Appellant Polson Bakers, Near Ksrtc Bus Stand, Pala 686575 [Pan: Awgpj3719H] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Kottayam .......... Respondent

For Appellant: Smt. Ramya N., CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM Assessment Year: 2021-22 Annie Joseph

Babian, Lucknow vs. Income Tax Officer (1), Lucknow-New

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 167/LKW/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudharybabian Income Tax Officer (1) V. B-155, Bhootnath Market, Lucknow New, Indira Nagar, Lucknow-226016. Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, 57, Ram Tirath Marg, Lucknow-226001. Pan:Aacfb9247N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Devashish Mehrotra, Ca Respondent By: Shri. Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 23 04 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 04 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Devashish Mehrotra, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl

Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

That the CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the addition made by way of disallowance of employees contribution to Provident Fund under section 143(1)(a) is outside the scope of the provisions and, therefore, for this reason alone, the same deserves to be deleted. 2. That ... Employee. 3. The facts giving rise in the present appeal are that in this case the Assessing Officer made adjustment under section 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”, for short) thereby making disallowance of the employees contribution towards provident fund being delay in deposit

Ravindra Jagannath Saindane, Mumbai vs. Asst/Dy, Circle 2(1)(1), Vadodara

The appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 207/AHD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Apr 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Smt. Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं /Ita No. 207/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2022-23 Ravindra Jagannath Saindane Asst./Dy. Cit बनाम/ B2/8/13 Circle-2(1)(1) V/S. Sector-16 Vadodara Vashi Navi Mumbai – 400 703 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Ahfps 2405 R (अपीलाथ)/ Appellant) (*+ यथ)/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Bhupendra C. Mehta, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Jain, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29/04/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/04/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’], Dated 12/12/2024 Passed For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2022-23. 2. The Assessee, In This Appeal, Has Taken Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Ld Addl Jcit A Grossly Erred On Facts & In Law In Dismissing The Appeal Without Adjudicating The Preliminary Issue Raised Regarding The Violation Of Statutory Provision Of Sec 143 1 1 A Of The Income Tax Act 1961 The Act In The Form Of Non Issue & Service Of The Notice By The Ld Ao Us 143 1 A Of The Act Before Making The Adjustment Of Rs. 1025170. Ravindra Jagannath Saindane Vs.Asst.Dy.Cit Cir-2(1)(1), Vadodara Asst. Year : 2022-23

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra C. Mehta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Jain, Sr.DR

Section 10Section 143Section 143(1)

income for the Financial Year (FY) relevant to the Assessment Year (AY) 2022-23 which came to be processed under the provisions of section 143(1) of the income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The said return came to be processed and summarily assessed under ... opportunity to the assessee to furnish the reply and defend his case. He has further submitted that as per the relevant provisions of section 143(1) of the Act, the Ravindra Jagannath Saindane vs.Asst.Dy.CIT Cir-2(1)(1), Vadodara Asst. Year : 2022-23 3 CPC/Assessing Officer (AO) was supposed

Deputy Commissioner of Income -Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad vs. Mustufamiya Hussenmiyan Shaikh, Ahmedabad

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1889/AHD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Apr 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri V Nandakumar, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kshatriya, AR and Shri Alay Anil Kshatriya, AR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 250Section 69

ITA No.1888 & 1889/Ahd/2024 DCIT vs. Mustufamiya Hussenmiya Shaikh Page 1 of 9 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH

Deputy Commissioner of Income -Tax Central Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad vs. Mustufamiya Hussenmiyan Shaikh, Ahmedabad

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1888/AHD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri V Nandakumar, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kshatriya, AR and Shri Alay Anil Kshatriya, AR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 250Section 69

ITA No.1888 & 1889/Ahd/2024 DCIT vs. Mustufamiya Hussenmiya Shaikh Page 1 of 9 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH

Pune Zilha Madhyawati Sakakak Pune, Pune vs. ITO, Ward 6(3), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 322/PUN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.322/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20 Pune Zilla Madhyawati V The Income Tax Officer, Sakakak, S Ward-6(3), Pune. 92 Ranjan Co-Op Society, Shukrawar Peth, Shukrawar Peth S.O., Pune – 411002. Maharashtra. Pan: Aaatp6962E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 142Section 143(1)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(2)(d)

assessee filed a paper book. Advocate Ashvini explained that assessee’s claim for 80P has been denied by Centralized Processing Centre under section 143(1) of the Act. She further explained that assessee had filed Return of Income within the time allowed u/s.139(1) of the Act. She took ... without specifying any reason. We have already mentioned that assessee had filed Return of Income u/s.139(1) of the Act. 4.3 The Section 143(1) is reproduced here as under : “143. (1) Where a return has been made under section 139, or in response to a notice under sub-section

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad vs. Parasuraman Karthik Iyer, Chennai

In the result, appeals in ITA

ITA 31/HYD/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Apr 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1796 To 1798/Hyd/2019 & Ita Nos.30 & 31/Hyd/2020 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2010-11) Dy. Cit Vs. Shri Parasuraman Karthik Iyer, Chennai Circle 16(2) Pan:Aftpk1261M Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. M. Narmada, Cit(Dr) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri A. Srinivas, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 06/02/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 30/04/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothese 5 Appeals Filed By The Department Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of The Learned Cit (A)-4, Hyderabad, Out Of Which 3 Appeals Are Arising From The Orders Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The I.T. Act, 1961 For The A.Y 2008-09 To 2010-11 & 2 Appeals Are Arising From The Penalty Order Passed U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act, For The A.Ys 2009-10 & 2010-11 Respectively. In The Quantum Appeals, The Department Has Raised

For Appellant: Shri A. Srinivas, CAFor Respondent: : Smt. M. Narmada, CIT(DR)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 80G