← 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)

Suva Lal Paharia, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 6(3), Jaipur

ITA 157/JPR/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jun 2024AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta (Adv.) &For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Chaudhary (Addl.CIT)
Section 144Section 147Section 5

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR श्री मनीष बोराड, लेखा

Shrey Associates, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Circle-3, Jaipur

26. For the foregoing reasons and discussion, finding merit in the contentions raised on behalf of the assessee as regards the only challenge to the addition of Rs

ITA 127/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. M.L. MEENA, AM, SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri K.L. Moolchandani (I.T.P.)For Respondent: Shri Anil Dhaka (CIT)
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, “B-Bench” JAIPUR MkWa- ,e- ,y

Secondary School Education Society Hegdekatta, Sirsi vs. Income-Tax Officer (Exemptions) Ward-1, Mangalore

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

ITA 897/BANG/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jun 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavsecondary School Education The Income Tax Officer Society Hegdekatta (Exemption), Ward -1 1. Shri Gajanan Sec. School Albuquerque House Vs. Hegdekatta Sirsi Attavar Road, Attavar Sirsi 581403 Karnataka Mangalore 575001 Pan – Aanas3479D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Prabhath P. Bhat, Ca Revenue By: Ms. Neha Sahay, Jcti-Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.06.2024 O R D E R Per: Prakash Chand Yadav, J.M. The Present Appeal Of The Assessee Is Arising From Din & Order No. Itba/Apl/S250/2003-24/1063671684(1) Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Aurangabad (Cit(A)) Dated 30.03.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) In Respect Of Assessment Year (Ay) 2021-22. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, A Charitable Trust Registered With Income Tax Department Under Section 12Aa & Also Got 80G Of The Act. The Main Object Of The Assessee Is To Provide Education To Aspirants From Primary Level To Secondary Level. For The Impugned Year, Assessee Has Filed Its Return Of Income Electronically On 07.01.2022, Declaring Gross Total

For Appellant: Shri Prabhath P. Bhat, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCTI-DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250

Form 10B – uploaded Audit Report under Rule 17B 3. 31.08.2022 Intimation with Demand Intimation under Section 143(1); Notice from CPC received by the Appellant on 09.09.2022 4. 08-09-2022 3-verification of Form 10B Compliance re: Form 10B – e- filing Filing of 1st Appeal

Laxmilal Badolla, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(7), Bangalore

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

ITA 815/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Years : 2016-17

For Appellant: Smt Suman Lunkar, C.AFor Respondent: Smt Neha Shaya, Addl CIT DR
Section 143(1)Section 271BSection 271D

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV

Vinay Konchady Shenoy, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 455/BANG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jun 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Ramesh .C, CA
Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 234ASection 54Section 55A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC-‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD

M/S. Prazim Trading and Investment Company Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1039/BANG/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jun 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2021-22 M/S. Prazim Trading & Investment Vs. Dcit, Company Private Limited, Circle – 3(1)(1), 574, Next To Wipro Corporate Office, Bengaluru. Sarjapur Road, Doddakkanelli, Bengaluru – 560 035. Pan : Aaacp 4921 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. B. K. Manjunath, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Subramanian S, Addl. Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 02.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.06.2024

For Appellant: Shri. B. K. Manjunath, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 250

along with interest amounting to Rs.12,87,27,475/- and claimed balance refund of Rs.28,370/-. Thereafter, the assessee received a notice under section 143(1)(a) of the Act proposing adjustment of Rs.4,93,34,784/- by alleging the particulars of the incorrect claim as “In Schedule ... back and included in 8b of the schedule BP. 4. Thereafter, the assessee company was served with an intimation dated 13/11/2022 passed under section 143(1) of the Act which carried the alleged incorrect claims adjustment as proposed U/s 143(1)(a) of the Act. This adjustment was mainly attributable

Anjuman Ekhadime Hussain Trust, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer- Exemption - 1(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4415/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt. Renu Jauhrianjuman Ekhadime Vs. Ito-Exemption-1(1) Hussain Trust Aayakar Bhawan, 101 Zabib Palace, Off Panch Mumbai, Marg, Off Yari Road, Maharashtra Andheri (W.), Maharashtra-400061 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aabta4720E Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. Rachit GajeraFor Respondent: Shri. Nagnath Pasale
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 154Section 250

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SMT. RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT

Rakesh Chandranath Sharma, Mumbai vs. ITO-42(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 4124/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri Girish Agrawal, Am Rakesh Chandranath Sharma Ito-42(3)(2) 4, Adhikari Bhavan, Kautilya Bhavan, G Block, Near Hotel Classic, Bkc Bandra Kurla Complex, Behind Jain Sweets, Old Nagardas Vs. Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 051 Road, Andheri(E), Mumbai-400 069

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE MS KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, AM Rakesh

DCIT, Circle, Patiala vs. M/S the British Co. Ed. School, Patiala

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 413/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Dharamvir, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 36Section 43B

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ “बी” , च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “B”, CHANDIGARH HEARING

JCIT(OSD), C-1, (E), Chandigarh vs. The Sikh Educational Society, Patiala

ITA 874/CHANDI/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) Against Assessment Order Dt. 30/03/2013 Which Was Passed By Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax, Patiala Range, Patiala, Punjab Which Order Is Hereinafter Referred To As “Ao’S Order”.

For Appellant: Shri Vibhor Garg, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 11Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250(6)

specific section 11 falls under heading Income from Property held for charitable or religious purposes. The return of income was processed under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act. 4. Thereafter, the above return of income was selected under scrutiny as per the guidelines issued by the CBDT

The Sikh Educational Society, Patiala vs. Addl. CIT, Range, Patiala

ITA 687/CHANDI/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) Against Assessment Order Dt. 30/03/2013 Which Was Passed By Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax, Patiala Range, Patiala, Punjab Which Order Is Hereinafter Referred To As “Ao’S Order”.

For Appellant: Shri Vibhor Garg, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 11Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250(6)

specific section 11 falls under heading Income from Property held for charitable or religious purposes. The return of income was processed under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act. 4. Thereafter, the above return of income was selected under scrutiny as per the guidelines issued by the CBDT

Sh. Aman Seth, Ludhiana vs. ITO, W-1(1), Ludhiana

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

ITA 1318/CHANDI/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 129Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 253Section 36Section 44A

assessee fled a return of income of Rs. 10,61,330/- electronically on 23/09/2013. The return filed by the assessee was processed under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 07/01/2014. The case was selected for scrutiny through CASS. The statutory notice under section 143

Sainik Seva Services, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

Accordingly, the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the Ld.CIT(A) is deleted. The appeal filed by the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 286/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member Assessment Year : 2017-18 Sainik Seva Services The Dy. Cit 132, Ft. Ring Road Vs Circle-3(1)(1) Near Ashwamegh Bungalows Ahmedabad-380 014 Iocl Petrol Pump, Satellite Ahmedabad – 380 015 (Gujarat) Pan: Acafs 8028 C अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sakar Sharma, Ca Revenue By : Smt. Malarkodi R., Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri Sakar Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Malarkodi R., Sr.DR
Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 44ASection 69Section 69A

income for the AY 2017-18 on 29-10-2017, declaring a total income of Rs.56,28,610/-, which was processed under section 143(1) of the Act. The case was selected for scrutiny under the Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection (CASS). Notices under sections 143(2) and 142(1

Mahesh Kumar Sukhjika Kedia, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 296/HYD/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Jun 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Kumaran, DR
Section 143(1)(a)

compared to preceding previous year with issues involved “Cash deposit during demonetization”. 4. Learned Assessing Officer PASSED THE ORDER dated 30/12/2019 under section 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), without any adverse comments or addition in respect of the large investments in property or capital

Anjuman E Khadimul Muslimeen Refah-E-Aam, Kachiguda vs. DCIT., Exemption Circle 1(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 552/HYD/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Jun 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)

trust, application of Income as per the provisions of Section 11 and returned NIL Income. 5. An intimation was passed under section 143(1) of the Act for the assessment year 2019-2020 wherein the entire gross receipts of the trust was taxed at Rs. 65,81,440/-. According ... assessee, at the time of processing the return under section 143(1) of the Act the amount applied for Charitable purposes at Rs.54,31,590/-, amount applied on capital account Rs.5,48,330/- and amount accumulated and set apart at Rs. 6,01,520/- were ignored. Learned AR submitted that

Marda Collections Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 7(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed and further directions as per para 8 are issued to the AO

ITA 71/KOL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Jun 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri B. K. Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Pati, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 2(24)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 4Section 43B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT

Indiyaa Distribution Network LLP, Indore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1), Indore

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

ITA 258/IND/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shrib.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2018-19 Indiyaa Distribution Dy. Cit, Network Llp, 1(1), 11D, Sampat Farm, Indore. Opp.Agrawal Public बनाम/ School, Vs. Bicholi Mardana Road, Indore. (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aarfg1302N Assessee By Ms.Ruchira Singhal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 21.06.2024

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 34(1)(iv)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

r.w.s. 143(3A) and 143(3B). As there was ambiguity of late payment of ESIC/PF, the same falls out of purview of section 143(1). 4. The appellant craves leave to add, to alter, amend, modify, sub statute, delete and or rescind all or any of the grounds of appeal

Madhusudhan Pillai, Vikhroli vs. DCIT Circle-42(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 804/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

For Appellant: Ravindra PoojaryFor Respondent: H.M. Bhatt
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 6Section 90

circumstances in confirming the action of the A.O confirming the disallowance of deduction of Rs.18,74,932/- made by the CPC under section 143(1) of the Act, without appreciating that the disallowance is a debatable issue and hence the adjustment is bad in law. 4. The appellant craves leave

Vivek Ramsing Padvi, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-Ward 29(3)(5), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical

ITA 357/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Shahank MehtaFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon
Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 69

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B R BASKARAN, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM

Vivek Ramsing Padvi, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 29(3)(5), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical

ITA 356/MUM/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Shahank MehtaFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon
Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 69

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B R BASKARAN, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM