“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)

Rahul Anand, Kolkata vs. A.D.I.T., CPC, Bangalore

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1497/KOL/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Dec 2024AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Rajat Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Supriya Pal, DR

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 295(1)Section 90

filed the subsequent to the passing of assessment order. W P. No 5834 of 2022. Further, in the present case, the intimation under Section 143(1) was issued on 26.03.2021, but the FTC was filed on 02.02.2021. Thus, the respondent is supposed to have provided the due credit

Mahesh Lingappa, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(3)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1400/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Ms. Pratibha .R, Advocate

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC-‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K

Floral Deck Plaza Premises Co-Op Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. CPC ITO, Mumbai

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

ITA 4669/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri N.R. AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Dinesh A Chourasia, Sr.DR

Section 143(1)Section 250

ground of delay without adjudicating the grounds raised by the assessee on merits against the adjustment made vide intimation issued under section 143(1) of the Act. We find that the Accountant/Consultant of the assessee made the following submission in his affidavit sworn on 17/04/2024 for seeking condonation of delay ... further pertinent to note that the assessee does not stand to benefit by not challenging the additions made vide intimation issued under section 143(1) of the Act. Accordingly, we are of the view that the said delay should be condoned. Hence, we deem it appropriate to set aside

Manek Metal Industries, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 19(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 2009-

ITA 4278/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri S.L. JainFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr. DR

Section 133Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

return of income on 14/08/2009 declaring a total income of INR 6,85,860. The return filed by the assessee was processed under section 143(1) of the Act. Reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act, were initiated in the case of the assessee based on information received from

Manek Metal Industries, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 19(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 2009-

ITA 4276/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Dec 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri S.L. JainFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr. DR

Section 133Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

Bholeshwar Chopra, Delhi vs. Ward 68(5), New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for

ITA 2340/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.2340 & 2336/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2020-21 & 2021-22 बनाम Bholeshwar Chopra Ito Ec 336, Maya Enclave, Vs. Ward 68(5), G 8 Rajouri Garden, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No. Adupc7256R अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 1Section 154Section 36(1)(va)

No.2336/Del/2024): 1. The Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)/Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] erred in orders passed under sections 143(1) of the Income Tax Act 1961, dated 17.12.2022, alleging a lack of opportunity to present his case, refuting the Ld. NFAC / CIT(A)’s justification based ... Assessing Officer at CPC Bangalore. In the case of the Assessee, it is argued that the adjustment made exceeds the scope of Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, especially regarding the addition of Rs.11,63,284/- u/s 36(1)(va) concerning PF/ESI. This adjustment is deemed

Bholeshwar Chopra, Delhi vs. Ward 68(5), Delhi

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for

ITA 2336/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Dec 2024AY 2021-22

Section 1Section 154Section 36(1)(va)

ACIT Central Circle, Ghaziabad vs. A1-Dua Food Processing Private Limited, New Delhi

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

ITA 1007/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareekacit, Central Circle, Vs. Al-Dua Food Processing Pvt. Ltd., Ghaziabad. 16, Fire Brigade Lane, Connaught Place, New Delhi – 110 001. (Pan : Aagca0396J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Deepak Singh, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Javed Akhtar, Citdr Date Of Hearing : 25.09.2024 Date Of Order : 06.12.2024 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman,Am: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-4, Kanpur [Hereinafter Referred To ‘Ld. Cit (A)’] Dated 25.01.2023 For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring Total Income Of Rs.8,76,98,220/- On 30.11.2017. The Return Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’). The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass & Statutory Notices

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Javed Akhtar, CITDR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 145Section 40A(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHIR

DCIT Circle 27(1), New Delhi vs. United Drilling Tools Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5913/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Before Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 36(1)(va)

1 DCIT Vs. United Drilling Tools Ltd. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘G’: NEW DELHI BEFORE BEFORE

Hanubhai Devabhai Rathod, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Anand

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

ITA 669/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 668 & 669/Ahd/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18) बनाम/ Hanubhai Devabhai Income Tax Officer Rathod Ward 1, Anand Vs. C/O. M S Chhajed & Co. Ca, “Kamal Shanti” Nr. Sardar Patel Statue, Ahmedabad - 380014 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abrpr2912C (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Mahesh Chhajed, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 26/11/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 05/12/2024 O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, (In Short ‘The Cit(A)’), Dated 09.03.2024 For The Assessment Years 2016- 17 & 2017-18 Respectively. As The Facts Of The Cases Are Identical, They Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of Vide This Common Order.

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh Chhajed, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 69Section 69A

669/Ahd/2024 [Hanubhai Devabhai Rathod vs. ITO] A.Ys. 2016-17 & 2017-18 - 2 – total income of Rs.6,70,700/-. The return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). Subsequently, the AO received an information that the assessee had two bank accounts with

Hanubhai Devabhai Rathod, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Anand

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

ITA 668/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh Chhajed, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 69Section 69A

Advik Hi Tech Pvt Ltd, Pune vs. Dy.Comm..of Incometax, Circle 8, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1344/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

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

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 270ASection 270A(10)Section 270A(7)

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

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Ahmednagar vs. Ahmednagar District Central Co-Operative Bank Limited, Ahmednagar

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1237/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri CH NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 37

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

Alip Mitra, Nadia vs. I.T.O., Ward - 41(1), Nadia

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2085/KOL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Dec 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.2085/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Alip Mitra………….… ……….. ……..……………………....Appellant Baranasi Roy Road, Goari Bazar, Krishna Nagar, Sonapatty, Nadia, W.B. – 741101. [Pan: Abafa6640D] Vs. Ito, Ward-41(1), Nadia…. ….…….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Rajat Datta, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 04, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 05, 2024 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 28.08.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of Distribution/Selling Of Products Of Hindustan Lever & Itc & Filed His Return Of Income Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.4,14,860/- For The F.Y 2016-17 Relevant To A.Y 2017-18. The Return Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Act. Subsequently, The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny Due To Large Cash Deposit Made During The Demonetization Period. Notices U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act Were Issued & The Assessee Complied With By Submitting Required Documents & Made Appearance Before The Assessing Officer Through His Engaged Authorized Representative (Ar). During The Assessment

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250

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

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1(4), Kolkata vs. Uttarayan Trust for Education Social Welfare, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1915/KOL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

Section 11Section 12ASection 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ ‘‘सी’’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH: KOLKATA "ी संजय गग

Surrendra Kumar Goenka, Howrah vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru / I.T.O., Ward 61(3), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1831/KOL/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Dec 2024AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 5Section 90

subsequent to the passing of assessment order. W P. No 5834 of 2022. 12 Further, in the present case, the intimation under Section 143(1) was issued on 26.03.2021, but the FTC was filed on 02.02.2021. Thus, the respondent is supposed to have provided the due credit

K.G. Denim Limited, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Tp-2(1), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1718/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1718/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 K G Denim Limited, Dcit, 1, Thenthirumalai, V. Tp-2(1), Jadayampalayam B.O., Chennai. Dhoddabavi, Coimbatore – 641 302. [Pan: Aaack-7940-C] (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri. Arjun Raj, Advocate : Shri. A. Sasikumar, Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.09.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05.12.2024

For Appellant: Shri. Arjun Raj, Advocate

Section 263Section 263(1)(c)Section 801A

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी महावीर "सह, उपा"य

The Beekeepers Co-Operative Society Limtied, Sakaleshapura vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Hassan

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed as indicated above

ITA 2040/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Sri Pranav Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for revenue

Section 10Section 143(1)

ITA No.2040/Bang/2024 The Beekeepers Co-operative Society Ltd., Hassan IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI

The Market Reserch Society of India, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Exemption Ward 2(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 5088/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr. DR

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 234B

case and in law, availability of exemption under section 11 of the Act cannot be decided by the CPC in an intimation under section 143(1) of the Act or order under section 154 of the Act. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case ... erred in not providing intimation in writing or electronic mode with respect to proposed adjustment in terms of section 143(1)(a) of the Act. 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in lave, the CPC as well as the M. CTT(A) erred in taxing gross

M/S. Bakshi Security & Personnel Services P Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 12(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4266/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Haresh P. Shah, A/RFor Respondent: Ms. Monika H. Pande, Sr. D/R

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

NFAC, Delhi erred in dismissing the appeal disregarding the bonafide and genuine submissions with regard to applicability of the provisions of section 143(1)(a)(ii) & claim of Employees' PF & ESIC Contribution payment under the provisions of section 43B of the Act. (2) On the facts and circumstances ... learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that – (i) the provision of section 143(1)(a)(ii) was not applicable to the debatable issues as such, and therefore, the alleged claim was allowable under the provisions of section 43B of the Act; and (ii) in view of the judgment