← 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)

Mandi Saksharta Evum Janvikas Samiti, Mandi vs. Addl. CIT, CPC, Bangalore

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 714/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.714/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Mandi Saksharta Evum Janvikas Samiti Addl. Cit बनाम/ Saksharta Bhawan Mandi (T), Mandi H.O. Cpc, Bengaluru Vs. Himachal Pradesh India – 175001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaajm-0214-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Vigyan Prakash Arora (Ca) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. Cit) - Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02.02.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03.02.2026 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2018- 19 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Addl. / Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Mumbai [Cit(A)] Dated 13-02-2024 In The Matter Of An Intimation Issued By Cpc U/S 143(1) On 04-03-2020. The Registry Has Noted Delay Of 66 Days In The Appeal. Considering The Background Of The Assessee, The Delay Is Condoned. Having Heard Rival Submissions, The Appeal Is Disposed-Off As Under.

For Appellant: Sh. Vigyan Prakash Arora (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) - Sr. DR
Section 119(2)(b)Section 143(1)

1 Assessment Year: 2018-19 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, CHANDIGARH HYBRID HEARING BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI

Rohit Kumar, Income Tax Officer, Ward-12(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. the United Provinces Sugar Company Pvt Ltd, Kolkata

ITA 1130/KOL/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Feb 2026AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2024-25 Ito, Ward-12(1), Kolkata…..……..……….………….……….……….……Appellant Vs. M/S The United Provinces Sugar Company Pvt. Ltd.…….....……...…..…..Respondent 1St Floor, Chartered Bank Building, 4, Netaji Subhash Road, Kol-1. [Pan: Aaact4947L] Appearances By: Shri S B Chakraborthy, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri J P Khaitan, Sr. Counsel, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 20, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 03, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.03.2025 Of The Addl/Jcit(A)-9, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2024–25. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That During The Year Under Consideration, The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 11.10.2024 Claiming A Refund Of Rs.15,61,200/- Pursuant To Set-Off Of Brought Forward Business Loss Against The Returned Income. Intimation Order U/S. 143(1) Of The Act Was Directly Passed On 01.11.2024, Assessing A Refund Of Rs.16,22,410/- & Allowing Setoff Of Brought Forward Loss Against Income As Done In The Return Of Income. However, The Order Did Not Capture The Schedule Of Carry Forward Business Loss & Unabsorbed Depreciation For Earlier Years. M/S The United Provinces Sugar Company Pvt. Ltd 3. Aggrieved By The Above Order, The Assessee Filed Appeal Before The Ld. Cit(A) Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Allowed The Appeal Of The Assessee By Observing As Under:

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

case are similar and the adjustment made by the CPC was not upheld. It is clearly stated in 1st proviso to Section 143(1) (a) that no adjustment can be made without providing notice for adjustment either physically or electronically, but in case of the appellant no such notice ... United Provinces Sugar Company Pvt. Ltd present case, no show cause notice was issued to the assessee in terms of first proviso to Section 143(1)(a) of the Act was issued by the CPC before carrying out the adjustment. We note that in this case, the assessee had filed

Chrysalis Play School Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai

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

ITA 3586/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3586/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2022-23 Chrysalis Play School Private Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 12, South Mada Street, Srinagar Income Tax, Colony, Saidapet, Chennai 600 015. Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai. [Pan: Aaicc2959D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Girish Kumar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Y. Sudarshan, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 27.01.2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 02.02.2026 : आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 31.12.2024 Passed By The Addl./Jcit(A), Faridabad For The Assessment Year 2022-23. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 273 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Affidavit, In 2

For Appellant: Shri Girish Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Y. Sudarshan, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 170A

short] on 06.10.2022 admitting a total income of ₹.37,31,961/- for AY 2022-23 and the same was processed under section 143(1) of the Act dated 24.02.2023. Thereafter, the companies Royalsoft Services Limited [PAN: AAACX0016E] and Amaryllis Properties Private Limited [PAN; AAJCA4663M] got amalgamated with the assessee vide