← 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)

Estate of Late K Mahes Rep by Krishna Mahesh, Chennai vs. DCIT, Non Corp Ward 1(2), Chennai

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

ITA 2422/CHNY/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Nov 2024AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2422/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2023-24 Estate Of Late K. Mahesh Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Rep. By Krishna Mahesh, New No. 81, Income Tax, Old No. 39, First Main Road, Non Corporate Ward 1(2), Rajaannamalaipuram, Chennai. Chennai 600 028. [Pan: Aabae4843K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 20.11.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27.11.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 18.07.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/ Addl./Jcit(A)-2, Jaipur, For The Assessment Year 2023-24. 2. The Assessee Raised Sole Issue Of Challenging The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Dismissing The Appeal By Refusing To Condone The Delay Of 14 Days In Filing The Appeal In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)

days in filing the appeal in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2 I.T.A. No.2422/Chny/24 3. We note that intimation order under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] dated 27.05.2024 has been passed by the CPC, Bengaluru against which the assessee preferred

Perumal Loganathan, Chennai vs. ITO, Non Corp Ward-19(2), Chennai

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

ITA 2404/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2404/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Perumal Loganathan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Plot No. 103, 1St Street, 8Th Avenue, Non Corporate Ward 19(2), Pallava Garden, Old Pallavaram, Chennai. Chennai 600 117. [Pan: Abipl8407B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms.S. Jecintha, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 20.11.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27.11.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.06.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Challenging Exparte Order Of The Ld. Cit(A).

For Appellant: Ms.S. Jecintha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)

time. Thus, the delay of 16 days is condoned. 3. The assessee filed his return of income and the same was processed under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short]. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny and the assessment was completed under section 143

M.P.Recycling Company Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 4(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4205/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: FixedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm M. P. Recycling Company Private Asst. Cit, Central Circle 4(2)(1) Mumbai-400 020 Limited Vs. 51-53/A, Mittal Court, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aadcm 3153 A (Assessee) : (Respondent) Assessee By : None : Shri R. R. Makwana Respondent By : 17.10.2024 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 27.11.2024 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee, Challenging The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (‘Ld.Cit(A) For Short),National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short) Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act'), Pertaining To The Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ For Short) 2015-16. 2. As There Was No Representation On Behalf Of The Assessee, We Hereby Dispose Of This Appeal By Hearing The Learned Departmental Representative ('Ld.Dr' For Short) & On Perusal Of The Materials Available On Record. 3. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) At The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) (Hereinafter Referred To As The Cit(A)) Erred In Upholding The Action Of The Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 4(2)(1), Mumbai (Hereinafter Referred To As The Assessing Officer) In Levying The Impugned Penalty Of Rs 2,65,12,070 Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: 17.10.2024
Section 143(1)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM

Money Magnum Constructions, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 27, Mumbai

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

ITA 2445/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Money Magnum Constructions Pr. Cit, Circle-27 Room No. 401, 4Th Floor, Plot No. 157 Samruddhi, 18Th Road, Near Ambedkar Garden, Tower No. 6, Vashi Railway Station, Vs. Chembur (E), Mumbai-400 071 Commercial Complex, Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400 703. Pan/Gir No. Aacfn 9126 C (Assessee) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. Paresh Shaparia : Ms.Sanyogita Nagpal Respondent By : 09.09.2024 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 27.11.2024 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee, Challenging The Order Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Pcit, Mumbai-27 (‘Ld. Pcit For Short), Passed U/S.263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act'), Relevant To Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ For Short) 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Ground Of Appeal: I. “Order Passed Under Section 263 Is Bad In Law: 1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Pr. Cit 27 Erred In Treating The Order Under Section 147 R.W.S 144B Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Dated 24 March 2022 (Re-Assessment Order) As Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue & Thereby Setting Aside The Order. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Pr.Cit 27 Failed To Appreciate The Fact That The Original Assessment Order As Well As Re- Assessment Order Have Duly Considered The Transaction Of Nsel Commodity Loss Of Rs

For Appellant: Shri. Paresh ShapariaFor Respondent: 09.09.2024
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 40A(2)(b)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM

Shri Venkateshwara Panmasala Industries Pvt Ltd, Kolhapur vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(1), Kolhapur

The appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 733/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Nov 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Hon’Ble Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2019-20 Shri Venkateshwara Panmasala Industries Pvt Ltd, 335, Sangli Kolhapur Byepass Road, Dharangutti Via Jaysingpur – 416 203. Pan: Aaccs5553P. . . . . . . . Appellant V/S The Asstt Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Kolhapur . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Mr Hari Krishan [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Mr Arvind Desai [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 25/09/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 26/11/2024 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; The Present Appeal Of The Assessee Is Instituted U/S 253(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’ Hereinafter] Which Impugns First Appellate Order Dt. 06/03/2024 Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. Cit(A)/ Ld. Nfac’ Hereinafter] U/S 250 Of The Act Which Emerged In Relation To & Out Of Assessment Order Dt. 24/11/2023 Passed By Ld. Assessment Unit, Nfac [‘Ld. Ao’ Hereinafter] U/S 147 R.W.S 144B Of The Act For Assessment Year 2019-20 [‘Ay’ Hereinafter].

For Appellant: Mr Hari Krishan [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Arvind Desai [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148ASection 250Section 253(1)Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘B’ BENCH PUNE BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI G. D. PADMAHSHALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND HON