“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)

Dalmia Dsp Limited (Formerly Known As Kalyanpur Cements Limited), Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 5(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 54/KOL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Jan 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.54/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dalmia Dsp Ltd………………..………........………………....Appellant 2&3, Lic Building, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Sarani, (Clive Row), Kolkata-1. [Pan: Aabck1273H] Vs. Dcit, Circle-5(1), Kolkata…….……….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Navin Verma, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Subhendu Datta, Cit- Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 11, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 28, 2024 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 13.11.2018 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Pertaining To Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Company Filed Its Return Of Income On 25.09.2010 By Declaring A Total Loss Of Rs.63,97,05,090/-. The Return Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Act. Subseqeuntly, The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny & A Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Act Was Issued & Assessment Order Was Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 24.01.2013 Determining A Total Loss Of Rs.60,17,78,201/-. Later On, The Case Was Reviewed U/S 263 Of The Act Considering The Assessment Order Dated 24.01.2013 As It Was Found Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue As Per Order Dated 30.03.2015 U/S 263 Of The Act Setting Aside The File To The Assessing

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 43B

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

Bachira Uthaiah Poovaiah, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(4), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2410/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Years: 2018-19

For Appellant: Ms. Lakshmi S. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Dept

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 80CSection 90

account of taxes paid in foreign country namely “Norway”. 5. The Centralized Processing Centre (CPC), while processing the revised return under section 143(1) of the Act, disallowed the assessee’s claim for foreign tax credit under section 90 of the Act. 6. Aggrieved by the intimation order under section ... appellant submitted that the CPC without communicating the proposal to make disallowances proceeded to disallow the FCT in the intimation order under section 143(1) which is against the principles of natural justice. 9. The appellant further argued that the requirement of filing Form 67 as per the provision

Sree Basaweshwar Vyasaya Seva Sahakari Bank Limited Devihosur, Haveri vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Haveri

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2395/BANG/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jan 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Years: 2022-23

For Appellant: Shri Prasanna Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Dept

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 80ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

erred in confirming the disallowance of deduction under section 80P of the Act made by the CPC in the intimation issue under section 143(1) of the Act. Page 2 of 7 3. The necessary facts are that the assessee, a cooperative society, is engaged in the activity of providing ... which was claimed as deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. 4. The CPC while processing the return under section 143(1) of the Act disallowed the claim of the assessee under section 80P of the Act for the reason that the return of income was filed

M/S Paramanand and Sons, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(2)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2055/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Years : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Ashok A Kulkarni, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Dept

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 71(2)

assessee discharged the applicable tax liability of Rs. 3,58,312/-. However, the Centralized Processing Center (CPC), while processing the return under Section 143(1) of the Act, adjusted the business loss against the capital gains. This adjustment reduced the carry-forward business loss to Rs. 28,82,236/- while ... respectfully following the decision of Chandigarh Tribunal in identical facts and circumstances, we hold that the adjustment made by the CPC under Section 143(1) is required to be reversed, and the original computation filed by the assessee, where the business losses were carried forward as per its discretion under

DCIT - 1(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Housing Development Finance Corporartion Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 2862/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advoca

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT

Little Scholars Academy, Amroha vs. ACIT, Central, Moradabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1971/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13 Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/S. Livros Publishing Pvt. Ward-1(2)(4). Ltd., 37, Chippi Tank, Meerut (U.P) Meerut Pan: Aabcl7313B (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Lalit Mohan, Adv. & Shri AnkitFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 68

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI M BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL

Bharti Bansal, Agra vs. DCIT-1, Agra

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as

ITA 304/AGR/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Agra27 Jan 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 44A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA (SMC) BENCH, AGRA BEFORE : SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2010-11

Income Tax Officer Ward-2, Khamgaon vs. Renuka Oil Industries, Khamgaon

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 390/NAG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur27 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 154Section 35A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER SMC MATTER ITA no.390/Nag

DCIT Cent, Circle 1(3), Nagpur vs. Radhika Vegetable Oils Pvt Limited, Vizianagaram

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 17/NAG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur27 Jan 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

Section 115BSection 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40A(3)Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.M. ROY

Cochin Shipyard Employees Mutual and Public Welfare Trust, Cochin vs. ITO, Exemption Ward, Kochi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 249/COCH/2024[AY 2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 Jan 2025

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm

For Appellant: Shri K.T. Mohanan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JM ITA

Cochin Shipyard Employees Muthual and Public Welfare Trust, Perumanur vs. Office of the Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward, Kochi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 248/COCH/2024[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 Jan 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm

For Appellant: Shri K.T. Mohanan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JM ITA

Manish Kumar Jaisinghani, Prabhat Plaza vs. Income Tax Officer 1(1) Indore, Indore

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 126/IND/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Jan 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151

such issuance of notice, which is without proper sanction. Since, notice was issued within four year and original assessment order was passed under section 143(1) of the Act. Hence, permission ought to be obtained from the authorities as per section 151 of the Act but no such approval

Mont Vert 2 Co-Operative Housing Society Limited, Sus Road Pashan, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward2(2), Pune, Swargate

Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2662/PUN/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jan 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripote

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

Income Tax(Appeal) [NFAC]/ Addl.CIT(Appeal) under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for A.Y.2018-19 dated 17.10.2024, emanating from order under section 143(1) of the Act, dated 12.07.2019. The assessee has raised the sole ground of appeal as under : ITA No.2662/PUN/2024 “1. 80P deduction of Rs.1528879 ... 1) of the Act, claiming deduction under section 80P of the Act. However, the CPC vide its order dated 12.07.2019 passed under section 143(1) of the Act, denied the assessee’s claim for deduction under section 80P of the Act. The reason mentioned in the order is as under

Anshul Anil Goel, Pune vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (1) 1, Pune

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

ITA 2537/PUN/2024[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jan 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2024-25

For Appellant: Shri Sharad A ShahFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 143(1)Section 206CSection 64

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

Rekha Kishore Bari, Dhule vs. Assessing Officer-NFAC, Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1667/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1667/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Rekha Kishore Bari, V The Assessing Officer- Datta Bari Bhavan, S Nfac. Opp.Rana Pratap Statute, Dhule – 424001. Pan: Abepb3597J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Bhuvanesh Kankani – Ar Revenue By Shri Sandeep P Sathe – Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 09/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 27/01/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] For Assessment Year 2020-21 Dated 19.07.2024 Passed U/Sec.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Emanating From The Assessment Order U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144B Of The Act, Dated 31/08/2022. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 3GSection 56(2)

A.Y.2020-21 on 19/12/2020 declaring total income at Rs.42,87,800/- and agricultural income of Rs.20,000/-. The said return was processed under section 143(1) of the Act. Then, assessee filed Revised return on 21/05/2021 declaring Total Income at Rs.11,19,950/-. The assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny

Syed Asim, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-3(3), Chennai

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1888/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1885, 1886, 1887 & 1888/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 Syed Asim, The Income Tax Officer, New No.4, Old No.2, Chandralekha Vs. Non Corporate Ward-3(3), Muthusamy Mudaliar Street, Chennai. Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034. [Pan: Aveps 3501P]

For Appellant: Shri K. Ravi, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT

Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 44A

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’सी’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी जॉज" जॉज" के, उपा