← 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)

Anish Tandon, Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 70(1), Delhi

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

ITA 2664/DEL/2023[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jul 2024AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Sudhir Pareekanish Tandon, Vs. Acit, Circle 70(1), M-205, Greater Kailash – Ii, Delhi. Delhi – 110 048. (Pan : Aadpt5486A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Baldev Raj, Advocate Shri Maneesh Upneja, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 02.07.2024 Date Of Order : 04.07.2024 Order Per Shamim Yahya: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Dated 28.07.2023 For The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Assessee Read As Under :- “1. That The Order Under Section 250 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Is Bad In Law, Wrong In Facts Against Natural Justice. 2. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred By Not Allowing Foreign Tax Credit Despite The Fact That Tax Was Paid Overseas & Form 67 Was Filed Before The End Of The Assessment Year.”

For Appellant: Shri Baldev Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 234ASection 250Section 90(2)

143(1) r. w.s 154 of the Act and the issue is not a scrutiny assessment matter. As per the provisions of section 143(1) and 154, only mistake apparent from record can be taken into consideration herein, without going into the judicial decisions etc. As per the provisions

Samata Nagari Sahakari Patsanshta Maryadit, Pune vs. ITO, Ward 14(5), Pune

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

ITA 763/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.763/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Samata Nagari Sahakari Vs. Ito, Ward- 14(5), Pune. Patsanshta Maryadit, Prasanna Residency, At & Post Nira, Tal- Purandar, Dist. Pune- 412102. Pan : Aabas5442E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Mukund Bhagwat Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari Date Of Hearing : 11.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.07.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 11.03.2024 Passed By Ld Pcit, Pune-4 For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1) The Learned Pcit Erred In Initiating Action U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act Even Though The Assessing Officer'S Assessment Order Under Sec 143 (3) Was Neither Erroneous Nor Prejudicial To The Interests Of Revenue. 2) The Learned Pcit Erred In Not Properly Appreciating The Facts Of The Case & Ignoring The Order Of The Jurisdictional Hon'Ble Pune

For Appellant: Shri Mukund BhagwatFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

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

Mrs. Malini Ramakrishnan, Chennai vs. DCIT, CC-6(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1187/CHNY/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1187/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Mrs. Malini Ramakrishnan, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 46, Rukmani Salai, Kalakshetra Colony, Income Tax, Besant Nagar, Chennai 600 090. Corporate Circle 6(2), Chennai. [Pan: Achpr3778B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Mrs. T.V. Muthu Abirami, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G. Suresh, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 01.07.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 01.03.2024 Passed By The Addl/Jcit (A)-1, Vadodara For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Ld. Ar, Mrs. T.V. Muthu Abirami, Advocate Drew Our Attention To Ground No. 8 & Requested To Adjudicate The Ground As An Effective Ground. The Ld. Ar Further Submits That The Assessee Filed An Appeal Before The Ld. Cit(A) On 12.04.2021 With A Delay Of Eight Years

For Appellant: Mrs. T.V. Muthu Abirami, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Suresh, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 80CSection 80G

appeal before the ld. CIT(A) on 12.04.2021 with a delay of eight years 2 I.T.A. No.1187/Chny/24 as against the intimation passed under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] dated 11.03.2013 for the assessment year 2011-12. She submits that the delay was neither ... intimation proceedings. She vehemently argued that the ld. CIT(A) ought to have examined the issues on merits against the intimation order under section 143(1) of the Act in the first appellate proceeding, but without examining the same, he simply dismissed the appeal in limine. She submits that