← 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)

Ebrahim Essa Developers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO-9(2)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 1188/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Ebrahim Essa Developers Pvt. Ltd., Ito-9(2)(4), 115 Dathawala Wstate, Sv Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Jogeshwari West, 400 102. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aacce 4720 E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Hemanshu Joshi, DRFor Respondent: Mr. Prateek Jain
Section 147Section 148Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI RAHUL

Amrrut Shavjjibhai Gada, Mumbai vs. Dycit, Circle-13(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3825/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Anikesh Banerjee, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Dr. Prayag Jha & Shri Prateek Jha, A/RsFor Respondent: Dr. K.R. Subhash, CIT, D/R & Shri Ram Krishn Kedia, Sr
Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 68

| आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "ायपीठ, मुंबई | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON’BLE

Amrrut Shavjjibhai Gada, Mumbai vs. Dycit, Circle-13(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3824/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Anikesh Banerjee, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Dr. Prayag Jha & Shri Prateek Jha, A/RsFor Respondent: Dr. K.R. Subhash, CIT, D/R & Shri Ram Krishn Kedia, Sr
Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 68

| आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "ायपीठ, मुंबई | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON’BLE

Bird Execujet Airport Services Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 4(2), New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1017/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Dec 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Judicialmember

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 38

submitted as under :- “A. The disallowance made by CPC while processing the return u/s 143(1) is beyond the scope of provisions of section 143(1)(a) and, therefore, the disallowance made merits deletion - In this case, CPC vide order dated 06-06-2020 has made an adjustment u/s 143 ... envisaged u/s 143(1). In this regard it is submitted as under: (1) Scope of Adjustment u/s 143(1 )(a)(iv) - Provisions of section 143(1 )(a)(iv) as applicable to the year under consideration merely provided for an adjustment in respect of "disallowance of expenditure" indicated in the audit

Bird Worldwide Flight Service Mumbai Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle 4(2), New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1010/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Dec 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Judicialmember

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 38

submitted as under :- “A. The disallowance made by CPC while processing the return u/s 143(1) is beyond the scope of provisions of section 143(1)(a) and, therefore, the disallowance made merits deletion - In this case, CPC vide order dated 06-06-2020 has made an adjustment u/s 143 ... envisaged u/s 143(1). In this regard it is submitted as under: (1) Scope of Adjustment u/s 143(1 )(a)(iv) - Provisions of section 143(1 )(a)(iv) as applicable to the year under consideration merely provided for an adjustment in respect of "disallowance of expenditure" indicated in the audit

Bird Worldwide Flight Service Mumbai Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 4(2), New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1009/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Judicialmember

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 38

submitted as under :- “A. The disallowance made by CPC while processing the return u/s 143(1) is beyond the scope of provisions of section 143(1)(a) and, therefore, the disallowance made merits deletion - In this case, CPC vide order dated 06-06-2020 has made an adjustment u/s 143 ... envisaged u/s 143(1). In this regard it is submitted as under: (1) Scope of Adjustment u/s 143(1 )(a)(iv) - Provisions of section 143(1 )(a)(iv) as applicable to the year under consideration merely provided for an adjustment in respect of "disallowance of expenditure" indicated in the audit

Vikas Mehta, New Anaj Mandi, Rania, Sirsa vs. The Deputy Director of Income Tax CPC Bangaluru Joa Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Sirsa, Haryana

ITA 323/CHANDI/2024[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Dec 2024AY 2022-2023

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjeet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 194Q

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ “एस.एम.सी” , च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCHES, “SMC

Durgamatha House Building Construction Co Operative Housing Society Limited, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-11(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 659/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaassessment Year: 2020-21 Durgamatha House Building Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-11(1), Construction Co-Operative Hyderabad. Housing Society Limited, Hyderabad. Pan : Aacad6852C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri T. Chaitanya Kumar, Advocate Revenue By: Ms. Kavitha Rani, Sr-Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.12.2024

For Appellant: Shri T. Chaitanya Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Rani, SR-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

operative Housing Society Limited (supra), the claim for deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act was disallowed through intimation under section 143(1) of the Act and the rectification application filed by the assessee under section 154 of the Act was rejected. Appeal filed against the order under ... also rejected on the ground that the disallowance under section 80P(2) of the Act in the original assessment order under section 143(1) of the Act, but not under section 154 of the Act and, therefore, the assessee cannot challenge the order under section 154 of the Act, directly

Syed Imranuddin, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-2(2), Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeals of assessees are dismissed

ITA 434/HYD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Madan Mohan Meena, Sr.A.R
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 154

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “B”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI LALIET KUMAR

Syed Irfanuddin, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2(2), Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeals of assessees are dismissed

ITA 433/HYD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Madan Mohan Meena, Sr.A.R
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 154

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “B”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI LALIET KUMAR

Allcargo Gati Limited(Formally Known As Gati Limited), Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-2(2), Hyd, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

ITA 190/HYD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Dec 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. K. Haritha, CIT-DR
Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37Section 37(1)

Division under normal provisions, and book profits of Rs.30.11 crores under Section 115JB of the Act. The return was processed under Section 143(1) and selected for scrutiny under CASS. During assessment proceedings, notices under Sections 143(2) and 142(1) were issued and sought for furnishing the details

Allcargo Gati Limited(Formally Known As Gati Limited), Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-2(2) Hyderabad, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

ITA 1721/HYD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. K. Haritha, CIT-DR
Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37Section 37(1)

Division under normal provisions, and book profits of Rs.30.11 crores under Section 115JB of the Act. The return was processed under Section 143(1) and selected for scrutiny under CASS. During assessment proceedings, notices under Sections 143(2) and 142(1) were issued and sought for furnishing the details

Teddy Toy Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 8(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1793/KOL/2024[2023-2024]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Dec 2024AY 2023-2024

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A), The Assessee Submitted That Due To An Oversight Claim U/S 801Jjaa Of The Act Was Tendered Instead Of U/S 80Iac Of The Act. However, The Ld. Cit(A) Found That In Clause 33 Of The Audit Report (Form 3Cd) The Claiming Of Deduction U/S 80Jjaa Of The Act Was Mentioned. Also, The Procedural Formalities Pertaining To Any Claim U/S

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 801JSection 80ISection 80J

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH KOLKATA SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A

Bansal Foundation, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 1(2), Exemption, Kolkata

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

ITA 107/KOL/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Dec 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 107/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Bansal Foundation,………………………………Appellant 119, Park Street, 3Rd Floor, Kolkata-700016 [Pan:Aadtb0630J] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………………...Respondent Ward-1(2), Exemption, Kolkata, 10B, Middleton Row, Kolkata-700071 Appearances By: Ms. Puja Somani, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Nicholash Murmu, Addl. Cit, D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: November 13, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: December 10, 2024 O R D E R

Section 1Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)

Rs.2,59,042/-, which was assessed at Rs.26,50,000/-. Ld. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru has made an adjustment of Rs.17,90,958/- under section 143(1) of the Act to the total income declared by not allowing deduction claimed of the said amount under section 11 of the Act being

Shree Sidh Balaji Sakh Sahkarita Maryadit, Ujjain vs. Asst Director CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 413/IND/2024[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Indore10 Dec 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shrib.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2019-20 Shree Sidh Balaji Sakh Assistant Director Cpc, Sahkarita Maryadit, Bangalore बनाम/ Ramghat Marg, Vs. Ujjain (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aaja57480G Assessee By Ms.Sonam Khandelwal, Adv. Revenue By Shri Sanjeev H.Bhagat, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10.12.2024

Section 119(2)(a)Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 80Section 80ASection 80P

contention that the AO had no authority to make the impugned disallowance in the intimation u/s 143(1) because the provision of section 143(1) exiting at that time, did not permit such disallowance for AY 2019-20 involved in present appeal. This issue is elaborately dealt and decided ... 1) of the Act, can the deduction under section 80P of the Act be denied to the assessee, by way of adjustment under section 143(1) of the Act. On going through the statutory provisions, we observe that 80AC of the Act provides that no such deduction under section

Hatz Manufacturing Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. CPC, Bengaluru Income Tax Officer, Ward 7(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3319/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Dec 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 143(1)Section 2Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAJ

Income Tax Officer 8(3)(1), Mumbai vs. V Real Estate India Pvt.Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 1573/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ramesh CheddaFor Respondent: Ms. Usha Gaikwad, Sr. AR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250

loss at Rs. (-) 86,11,011/-. The original return of income filed by the assessee was processed vide intimation dated 15.01.2012 issued under section 143(1) of the Act accepting the returned loss. Thereafter, the assessee filed a revised return of income on 29.09.2012, wherein the loss was reduced

Mulkh Raj Mehta and Sons HUF, Hisar vs. Pr. CIT, Rohtak

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 2406/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganeshita No. 2406/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Mulkh Raj Mehta & Sons Huf, Vs Pr. Cit, 374, Sector-15A, Hisar, Rohtak, Haryana-125001 Haryana-124001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaihm9927L Assessee By : Sh. Mahfuzur Rahman, Ca & Sh. Surajh Bhan Nain, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. B. S. Anand, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.12.2024 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2018-19, Arises Against The Order Of Pcit, Rohtak Dated 18.03.2024 In Din & Order No. Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2023-24/1062878615(1), In Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. Mahfuzur Rahman, CA &For Respondent: Sh. B. S. Anand, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 145B(1)Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)

individual. He filed his return for AY 2018-19 on 29.08.2018 declaring income of Rs. 6,35,470/-. His return was processed under section 143(1)(a) on 28.06.2019. His case was selected for complete scrutiny assessment under the e-assessment Scheme, 2019 on two issues, namely refund claim ... deduction for 50% as 9 Mulkh Raj Mehta & Sons HUF per section 57(iv) of the 1961 Act. The return was processed under section 143(1) of the Act. An application under section 264 was made claiming that by mistake the assessee treated the interest income as income from other

Orient Fashion Exports (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-19(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2240/DEL/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganeshorient Fashion Exports Vs. Addl/ Jcit(A), (India) Pvt. Ltd, Udaipur E-45/14, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-Ii, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaaco4581F Assessee By : Ms. Gargi Sethi, Adv Revenue By: Shri Akhilesh Kumar Yadav, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 04/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10/12/2024

For Appellant: Ms. Gargi Sethi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Kumar Yadav, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 30(1)(va)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)

case and in law, the disallowance made under section 2(24)(x) r/w Section 36(1)(va) is outside the scope of section 143(1)(8)(0) of the Act and as such the order dated 16.03.2023 passed U/s 143(1) is bad in law and without jurisdiction.” We have

Knoldus Software LLP, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-49(1), Delhi

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1847/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usa.Yr. : 2019-20 Knoldus Software Llp, Vs. Acit, Circle 49(1), 10/19, West Patel Nagar, Delhi New Delhi – 110 008 (Pan: Aamfk0433H) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 37(7)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND SHRI YOGESH