“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)

Sri Sai Educational Society, Mahabubnagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Mahabubnagar

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

ITA 101/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.101/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2018-19) Sri Sai Educational Society, Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ward-1, Mahbubnagar. Mahbubnagar, Telangana. Pan: Aafas6773C (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri Mohd. Afzal, Advocate रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Smt. Sheetal Sarin, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 04/06/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 10/06/2024 आदेश/Order Per Laliet Kumar, J.M. :- This Appeal Is Filed By Sri Sai Educational Society (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Addl/Jcit (A)-10 Mumbai (“Ld. Cit(A)”), Dated 04.01.2024 For The Ay 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds : “1. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of [Income Tax (Appeals) Is Against The Law, Weight Of Evidence & Probabilities Of Case. 2. The Learned Additional Commissioner Erred In Confirming The Intimation U/S 143(1) In Which The Gross Receipts Of Rs.4,27,15,832/- Are Treated As Total Income Of The Assessee. 3. The Learned Additional Commissioner Ought To Have Appreciated That The Assessee Filed Itr-7,Inadvertently & Offered The Total

For Appellant: Shri Mohd. Afzal, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Smt. Sheetal Sarin, DR

Section 12ASection 139Section 139(9)Section 143(1)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ B ‘ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri Laliet Kumar, Judicial

Acrete Pharmaceuticals P Ltd, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 607/HYD/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Jun 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.607/Hyd/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2020-21) M/S. Acrete Pharmaceuticals P. Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ward-1(1), Hyderabad. Ltd., Hyderabad. Pan Aafca2804G (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri Ravindra Chenji, Advocate रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Smt. Sheetal Sarin, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 04/06/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 10/06/2024 आदेश/Order Per Laliet Kumar, J.M: This Appeal Is Filed By M/S. Acrete Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Addl/Jcit (A)-2 Mumbai (“Ld. Cit(A)”), Dated 10.10.2023 For The Ay 2020-21. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds : 1. The Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Herein After Addl. Cit) Erred In Dismissing The Appeal On Wrong Conception That The Provisions Of Section 115Ba Of The I T Act Are Applicable, Despite The Appellant’S Contention That The Said Provisions Does Not Apply. 2. The Appellant Contends That Addl. Cit Misdirected / Misconceived ;Himself On The Applicability Of Section 115Ba, When It Is Not The Point Of Issue Before Him At All. 3. The Appellant Contended That The Tax Ought To Have Been Charged At The Rate Specified In Paragraph E To Part 1 Of The First Schedule To Finance Act, 2020. 4. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Amend Or Alter Any Of The Aforesaid Grounds A The Occasion May Require.

For Appellant: Shri Ravindra Chenji, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Smt. Sheetal Sarin, DR

Section 115BSection 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)

1 ITA No.607/Hyd/2023 आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ B ‘ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri

Mak, Engineering Industries Ltd., Kolkata vs. PCIT(Cen.)-2, Kolkata

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

ITA 930/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 153ASection 263Section 40A(7)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण कोलकाता 'ए' पीठ, कोलकाता में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘A’ BENCH, KOLKATA श्री राजपाल

Metsil Exports Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. PCIT Cen.-2, Kolkata

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

ITA 928/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 143(1)Section 153ASection 263Section 79

Bengal General Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. PCIT(Cen.)-Kolkata-2, Kolkata

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

ITA 927/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

Bengal General Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. PCIT(Cen.) Kolkata-2, Kolkata

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

ITA 926/KOL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 153ASection 263

Asso Gums Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-6(4), Jaipur

ITA 457/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: This Appellate Tribunal By Way Of Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha (CIT-DR)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

issued and served upon the assessee. The assessee then filed return of income declaring total income of Rs.57,70,910/-. Thereafter, notice under section 143(1) and other notices were issued and served. Show cause notice was issued to the assessee on 4.11.2019. It is also admitted that the assessee

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2(1)(1), Bengaluru vs. Canara Bank, Bengaluru

In the result, revenue’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 716/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Sri S. Ananthan, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R

Section 14Section 147Section 14ASection 154

ITA No.111/Bang/2024 & 716/Bang/2024 M/s. Canara Bank, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI

Shri. Vishwakarma Hindulida Vargagal Vividoddesha Sahakara Sangha Ni Koppal, Koppal vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Koppal

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

ITA 533/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Sri Sreehari Kutsa, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for department

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 80P

ITA No.533/Bang/2024 Shri Vishwakarma Hindulida Vargagal Vividoddesha Sahakara Sangha, Koppal IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE

Canara Bank, Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore, Bengaluru

In the result, revenue’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 111/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Sri S. Ananthan, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R

Section 14Section 147Section 14ASection 154

ITA No.111/Bang/2024 & 716/Bang/2024 M/s. Canara Bank, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI

Income Tax Officer W 1, Hassan vs. Ramachandra Setty and Sons, Hassan

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1166/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R

Section 115BSection 132(4)Section 250Section 69B

decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court is reproduced below: “13……………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………may be noted above that under the first proviso to the newly substituted section 143(1), with effect from June 1, 1999, except as provided in the provision itself, the acknowledgment of the return shall be deemed ... intimation under section 143(1) where (a) either no sum is payable by the assessee, or (b) no refund is due to him. rt is significant that the acknowledgment is not done by any Assessing Officer, but mostly by ministerial staff. Can it be said that any assessment is done

Income Tax Officer, W-1, Vijayanagar vs. Ramachandra Setty and Sons, Hassan

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1165/BANG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R

Section 115BSection 132(4)Section 250Section 69B

Income Tax Officer Ward-1 Hassan, Hassan vs. Ramachandra Setty and Songs, Hassan

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1164/BANG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R

Section 115BSection 132(4)Section 250Section 69B

Income Tax Officer, W-1, Hassan vs. Ramachandra Setty & Sons, Hassan

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1163/BANG/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R

Section 115BSection 132(4)Section 250Section 69B

M/S. S. Ramashandra Setty & Sons, Hassan vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Hassan

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1156/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R

Section 115BSection 132(4)Section 250Section 69B

Harisons Steel Limited, Wada Thane vs. Dy CIT 12(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 3957/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Mani JainFor Respondent: Biswanath Das

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Unexplained investments (Suppressed sales) Assessment years 2005-06 to 2007-08 Assessee filed its return of income which was processed under section 143(1)- Subsequently. Assessing Officer noted that a show cause notice was issued upon assessee by Director General of Central Excise Intelligence for reason that there

Harisons Steel Ltd, Wada Thane vs. DCIT 12(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 3943/MUM/2023[AY 2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jun 2024

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Mani JainFor Respondent: Biswanath Das

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Anchana Sharma Prop., Mohali vs. ACIT, Cir. 1(1), Chandigarh

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

ITA 651/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri B.K.Nohria, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr.DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 282(1)Section 69A

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ , च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH ‘A’ CHANDIGARH

Niyatiben Alpesh Parikh, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 444/AHD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Jun 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: The Cit(A) Which Was Decided Vide The Impugned Order. The Ld. Jcit(A) Held That The Appeal Of The Assessee Was Not Maintainable U/S. 246 Of The Act. Now The Assessee Is In Appeal Before Us.

For Appellant: Shri Jyotish M. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Trupti Patel, Sr. D.R

Section 143(1)Section 237Section 245Section 246Section 250

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “SMC” BENCH Before: Shri TR Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member And Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Himanshu Engineering Works, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2)(7) Present Ward- 3(2)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 567/AHD/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 269SSection 36Section 40Section 40A(3)

profit and gains of business or profession” on a total turnover of Rs.2,25,07,622/-. The return of income was processed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and selected for scrutiny. Accordingly, after considering the submissions of the assessee, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment