← 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)

Maharashtra Maritime Board, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - Exem. Circle 2, Mumbai

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

ITA 8936/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM

Getinge Medical India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(2)(1), Mumbai Maharashtra

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 4872/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

Section 115Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 156Section 234ASection 270ASection 37Section 41Section 41(1)(a)

received from the office of AO for AY 2020-21, an 8 Getinge Medical India Private Limited appeal against the intimation under section 143(1), dated 23-10- 2021 has already been filed before CIT(A). Further the copy of grounds of appeal, as provided by AO are attached ... Getinge Medical India Private Limited 07-2024. In an appeal against the order under section 143(3), the additions/dis-allowances made in intimation under section 143(1) cannot be challenged, as there is no automatic merger of the 143(1) intimation with the order u/s 143(3). In respect of merger

Denso International India Private Limited, Delhi vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi

In the result, this appeal is partly allowed

ITA 6688/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.6688/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 बनाम Denso International India Private Ld. Dcit, Limited, Vs. Circle 7(1), B-1/D-4, Ground Floor,Mohan C.R. Building, Delhi. Cooperative Estate,Delhi. Pan No.Aabcd1103D अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 115Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

ITA No.6688/Del/2025 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “B”NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Rahul Aggarwal, India vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 30(3), Civic Centre, Delhi

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

ITA 6053/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarrahul Aggarwal, Income Tax Officer, 7708 (77 Avenue), Ward-30(3), Second Floor, Dlf Phase-Iv, Vs. Delhi. Gurugram-122009, Haryana. Pan-Ahcpa7394J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rajesh Mahna, Adv. & Shri Narender Goel, Adv. Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr Department By Date Of Hearing 09.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 13.03.2026 O R D E R Per Vimal Kumar, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against Order Dated 08.08.2025 Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Chennai [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Ld. Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 10.12.2019 For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Filed Return Of Income On 17.03.2018 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.4,08,280/- Which Was Processed By The Cpc U/S 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. Subsequently, The Case Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny Through Cass-2018Cycle On The Reason Of “Credit Card Payments”. Rahul Aggarwal Vs. Ito

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 69A

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

Vaneet Aggarwal, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-14(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 2607/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 69ASection 69C

ITA No. 2607/Del/2019 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F': NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT

ITO, New Delhi vs. Smt. Sudharshna Arora, New Delhi

In the result, grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1185/DEL/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Kumarita No.1185 /Del./2010, A.Y. 2004-05 Ito, Vs Smt. Sudharshna Arora Ward-24(4), . B-6/9, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaepa8154H (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

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

Rajkamal Agnihotri, Dehradun vs. Income Tax Officer, Dehradun

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 240/DDN/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun12 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2022-23] Rajkamal Agnihotri Vs Ito Shivalik View, Lane No.3, Ward-1(1)(3) Jogiala, Ring Road, Dehradun Nathanpur, Dehradun Uttarakhand Uttarakhand -248005 Pan-Amqpa2608G Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri K. K. Juneja, Adv. Respondent By Ms. Poonam Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 10.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 12.03.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 06.11.2025 By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), Nfac, Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Nfac/2021-22/10408670 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 14.03.2024 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2022-23. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income On 28.07.2022, Declaring Total Income Of Inr 4,89,260/-. The Return Was Updated On 11.09.2023 U/S 139(8A) Of The Act, Declaring Total Income Of Inr 73,92,200/- & Paid The Taxes Alongwith The Interest Thereon. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny On The Ground That No Capital Gain Was Reported In Itr Though The Assessee Has Sold The Property Thereafter, The Assessment Was Completed U/S 143(3)/144B Of The Act Dated 14.03.2024 Wherein Income Declared In The Updated Return Filed U/S 139(8A) Of The Act Was Accepted However, Penalty Proceedings U/S 270A(1) R.W.S. 270A(8) & 270A(9)(A) Of The Act Were Initiated. The Ao Thereafter, Proceeded With Pending Penalty Proceedings & Imposed The Penalty In Terms Of The Order Dated 14.03.2024 Imposing The Penalty Of Inr 31,58,542/- U/S 270A Of The Act.

Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 19Section 250Section 270Section 270ASection 270A(1)Section 9

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DEHRADUN “DB” BENCH: DEHRADUN BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT

Swarnimtouch Solutions Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. ITO Ward 4(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2466/AHD/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Mar 2026AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Hardik Vora, ARFor Respondent: Shri C Dharani Nath, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 80

circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly in confirming the adjustment under section 143(1), which the limited jurisdiction contemplated under the I said provision by applying it to a disputed arid debatable issue, instead of confining it to prima ... Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"). The return of income was processed by the Centralized Processing Centre (CPC), Bangalore under section 143(1) of the Act vide intimation dated 02.06.2025. While processing the return, the CPC disallowed the deduction of ₹55,10,805/- claimed under section

Tehmina K Katrak Charitable Trust, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 2(4), Mumbai

ITA 549/MUM/2026[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2026AY 2021-22
Section 11Section 119Section 139Section 154Section 92E

income tax portal. Therefore, Form 10B was refilled on 19/02/2022. It was submitted that, initially, Intimation Order, dated 10/08/2022, was passed under Section 143(1) of the Act accepting the return of income filed by the Assessee for the Assessment Year 2021-2022. However, subsequently, by way of suo-moto ... return of income, specific query in this regard was raised upon the Assessee. The Assessee received intimation, dated 01/07/2022, as per Proviso to Section 143(1) of the Act regarding proposed adjustments wherein it was stated as under: “The Trust or Institution registered under Section 12A/12AA/12AB has not E filed

Nityanand Nagar Vibhag -IV Cooperative Housing Society Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 24(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 494/MUM/2026[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryshri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe (Sr. DR.)
Section 143(1)Section 2(19)Section 250Section 70Section 80PSection 80P(1)Section 80P(2)(D)Section 80P(2)(d)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “H”, MUMBAI MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI GIRISH

Shanker Mirchumal Jethani, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 23(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 8383/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member), SHRI JAGADISH (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Ms. Namrata Chande (virtually present)For Respondent: Shri S. Anbuselvan (SRAR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

record. The assessee filed the return of income declaring a total income of Rs. 30,14,140/-. The return was processed under section 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny and the Ld. AO completed the assessment under section 143

Anand Sahakari Pathasanstha Maryadit Mumbai, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward 41(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assesse stands allowed

ITA 7215/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankaranand Sahakari Vs. Ito Ward 41(2)(1), Pathasanstha Maravadit Mumbai Mumbai Kautilya Bhavan, Ground Floor, Janakalyan Mumbai - 400051 Hsg Society, Varsha Nagar Parksite Vikhroli, Mumbai- 400079 Pan/Gir No. Aaeaa3233G (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ravindra Naik Revenue By Shri Harendra Verma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 12.03.2026 आदेश / Order Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order 09.09.2025 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’), By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For The Assessment Year 2018-19. The Following Grounds Are Reproduced Below: “1. The Ld. Cit (Appeals), Nfac Has Erred In Not Considering Entire Income Of The Assessee Eligible For Deduction U/S 80P(2)(A)(I).

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

records, we noticed that the deduction claimed by the assessee under Section 80P of the Act was denied while processing the return under Section 143(1) of the Act on the ground that the return filed by the assessee on 11.10.2018 was not filed within the limitation period. However, thereafter

Ekataa Commercial Centre Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 3, Mumbai

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

ITA 4902/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Suyog Bhave a/w. Shri Kshitij KasiFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi Sr. DR
Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 156Section 220Section 220(2)Section 234CSection 250

declaring total income of Rs. 9,44,59,940/-. The return filed by the assessee was processed vide intimation dated 29.06.2022, issued under section 143(1) of the Act, accepting the returned income of the assessee and raising a demand of Rs. 2,97,33,970/-. Subsequently, the assessee filed ... rectification order under section 154 of the Act and not from the date of processing of the return vide intimation issued under section 143(1) of the Act. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative (“learned DR”) vehemently relied upon the order passed by the lower authorities. 8. Having

Ericsson India Global Services Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT Spl. Range 3, New Delhi

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

ITA 2367/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Paras S. Savla, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.S. Nethrapal, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(13)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 234BSection 234CSection 254(2)Section 92C

previous year till the completion of assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act or processing of the return of income under Section 143(1) of the Act. The interest under Section 234C is payable for shortfall in payment of quarterly installments of tax and 1% for the month

The Camp Multipurpose Primary Agriculture Cooperative Society Limited, Pernem, Goa vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2 (1), Panaji, Goa

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

ITA 55/PAN/2026[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji11 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE (Judicial Member)

Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH PANAJI BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I T A. Nos.55/PAN/2026

ACIT Circle-1(1), Rajkot vs. Grenic Tiles Pvt Ltd, Morbi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, whereas

ITA 682/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot11 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 624/Rjt/2025

For Appellant: Shri R. K. Doshi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld.Sr.DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, राजकोट न्यायपीठ, राजकोट। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI

Grenic Tiles Private Limited, Wankaner-Morbi vs. Asst.Commissioner of Income-Tax Circle 1(1) RKT, Rajkot

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, whereas

ITA 624/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot11 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 624/Rjt/2025

For Appellant: Shri R. K. Doshi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld.Sr.DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, राजकोट न्यायपीठ, राजकोट। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI

Viren Vallabhdas Dhakan, Rajkot vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -2(1), Rajkot

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

ITA 34/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot11 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri D. M. Rindani, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 115bSection 143(3)Section 234aSection 250Section 271ASection 271aSection 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND DR. DINESH MOHAN

Taegutec India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result Appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed directing the Assessing

ITA 2265/BANG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2021-22

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Date of Hearing
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

Assessee preferred an Appeal against the Assessment Order also which commenced the computation of total income as per income computed under section 143 (1) of the act and Assessee also filed an Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) against the intimation issued u/s. 143 (1) of the Act which came

La Royal Co-Operative Hsg Soc Ltd, Kandivali vs. Assessing Officer, Kautiliya Bhavan

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 443/MUM/2026[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryshri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Ganshyamlal Kachhara, LdFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe (Sr. DR.)
Section 143(1)Section 2(19)Section 250Section 70Section 80PSection 80P(1)Section 80P(2)(D)Section 80P(2)(d)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “H”, MUMBAI MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI GIRISH