← 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)

Sudha Dhoot, Kolkata, Wet Bengal vs. Addl JCIT (A) 12, Mumbai

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

ITA 4054/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Kumar
Section 143(1)Section 250

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

Shri Nilesh Haresh Parwani, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-22(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2244/MUM/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 May 2024AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhshri Nilesh Haresh Vs. The Assistant Parwani, 501, Chumchum Commissioner Of Income Saraswati Road, Tax-22 (2) Santacruz West, Room No. 315, Piramal Mumbai – 400 064 Chamber, Lalbaug, Mumbai – 400 012 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Angpp1224L Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Sanjay Parikh Respondent By : Anil Sant Date Of Hearing 08.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 15.05.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) Nfac For A.Y. 2014-15. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “A. Addition/Disallowance Of Short Term Capital Loss Rs.1,62,91,466/- 1. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Erred On Facts & In Law In Confirming The Addition/Disallowance Of Short Term Capital Loss Of Rs. 1,62,91,466/- As Made By The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, 22(2), Mumbai (Ao). 2. While Confirming The Addition/Disallowance Of The Said Loss, The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Holding That The Appellant Had Not Made Out A Case As To How Such Huge Ltcg/Stcl Has Accrued To The Appellant From Shares Of The Company Named Global Infratech Ltd.

For Appellant: Sanjay ParikhFor Respondent: Anil Sant
Section 143(2)Section 69C

P a g e | 1 Shri Nilesh Haresh Parwani Vs. The ACIT-22(2) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

Rohin Koul, Usa vs. DCIT, Circle-3(1), Gurgaon

In the result, assessee’s appeal is, therefore, allowed for statistical

ITA 1240/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Raj KhannaFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Anand, Sr. D.R
Section 143(1)Section 250Section 90Section 90(2)

hereinafter referred as to ‘the Act’) arising out of the assessment order dated 11.01.2021 passed by the CPC, Bengaluru under Section 143(1) of the Act for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2018-19. ITA No.1240/Del/2023 Rohin Koul vs. DCIT Asst. Year 2018-19 -2- 2. At the time

DCIT, Central Circle-28, New Delhi vs. Psk Finance Solutions Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 663/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Sanket Milind Joshi, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Subhash Chandra, CIT-DR
Section 127Section 132(4)Section 132ASection 139Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 271FSection 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘H’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Kul Bharat, Judicial Member Dr. B. R

Balaji Shrushti Chs Ltd, Panvel vs. ITO, Ward - 1, Panvel

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 524/PUN/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 May 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.523 & 524/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2020-21 & 2021-22 Balaji Shrushti Chs Ltd., Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Panvel. Ground Floor, Plot No.3, Sector 19, New Panvel Navi Mumbai- 410206. Pan : Aaaab8345G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Manoj Tripathi Date Of Hearing : 29.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.05.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: Both The Above Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Common Order Dated 19.02.2024 Passed By Ld Cit(A) Addl/Jcit (A), Prayagraj For The Assessment Years 2020-21 & 2021-22 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Above Captioned Appeals Of The Assessee, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.523/Pun/2024 For The Assessment Year 2020-21 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Tripathi
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

decision to disallow the appellant's deduction claim under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act while processing the return under section 143(1) of the Act.” 7. Being aggrieved by the order of LD Addl/JCIT(A), the appellant assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 8. When the matter

Balaji Shrushti Chs Ltd, New Panvel vs. ITO, Ward - 1, Panvel

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 523/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 May 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.523 & 524/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2020-21 & 2021-22 Balaji Shrushti Chs Ltd., Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Panvel. Ground Floor, Plot No.3, Sector 19, New Panvel Navi Mumbai- 410206. Pan : Aaaab8345G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Manoj Tripathi Date Of Hearing : 29.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.05.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: Both The Above Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Common Order Dated 19.02.2024 Passed By Ld Cit(A) Addl/Jcit (A), Prayagraj For The Assessment Years 2020-21 & 2021-22 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Above Captioned Appeals Of The Assessee, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.523/Pun/2024 For The Assessment Year 2020-21 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Tripathi
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

decision to disallow the appellant's deduction claim under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act while processing the return under section 143(1) of the Act.” 7. Being aggrieved by the order of LD Addl/JCIT(A), the appellant assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 8. When the matter

Epiroc Mining India Private Limited (Previously Known As Epiroc Mining India Limited), Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 8, Pune

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

ITA 50/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.50/Pun/2024 (E-Appeal) "नधा"रण वष" : Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Ketan VedFor Respondent: Smt. Deepa Sanjay Hiray
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 234C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO

Hind Swaraj Trust, Ahmednagar vs. Income Tax Officer, (Exemption) Ward 1, Nashik

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

ITA 258/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.258/Pun/2024 (E-Appeal) "नधा"रण वष" : Assessment Year : 2013-14

For Respondent: Smt. Deepa Sanjay Hiray
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 154Section 154(7)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO

Ganpat Manikrao Sorgikar, Pune vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi and Local Jurisdiction Assessing Officer Ward 9(4), Delhi

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

ITA 199/PUN/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 May 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.199/Pun/2024 (E-Appeal) "नधा"रण वष" Assessment Year : 2012-13 Ganpat Manikrao Sorgikar, Vs. Nfac, Delhi/ Plot No.3B, Flat No.97, Assessing Officer, Sat Angan Appt, Cdc, Ward-9(4),Delhi Chikhali Road, Chinchwad, Pune 411 019 Maharashtra Pan : Cijps2716L Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Smt. Deepa Sanjay Hiray
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO

The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Circle-12, Pune vs. Raj Surendra Mohan Hajela, Pune

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

ITA 470/PUN/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 May 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak, Addl.CIT
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 90

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

Sachin Prakash Valse, Latur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 Latur, Latur

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 1448/PUN/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri Shashank Deogadkar
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “SMC” BENCH : PUNE BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A.No.1448/PUN./2023

The Jamsetji Nusserwanji Tata Parsi High School Trust, Nagpur vs. Deputy Director of Income Tax CPC, Bengalore, Bangalore

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

ITA 377/NAG/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur14 May 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Manoj MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya
Section 11Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 234ASection 250

dated 20/03/2023; wherein it has been held that “Without giving proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee/proper notice for adjustment through applying section 143(1)(a), no alteration in the returned figures can be done by CPC,Bangalore. In this appeal we observed that this basic provision

Rohtang Commercial Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 331/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm]

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 69

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, KOLKATA [Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, AM& Shri Sonjoy Sarma, JM] I.T.A. No

Mudur Vyavasaya Seva Sahakari Sangha Ltd., Udupi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Udupi

ITA 299/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 May 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh R. Uppin, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 143(1)Section 18Section 2(24)(viia)Section 56Section 80GSection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 8P(2)(d)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD

Bp Marine Academy, Mumbai vs. Dy. CIT(E)-1(1) Mumbai, Mumbai

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

ITA 4504/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Ms Padmavathy S

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 234Section 271

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, “B” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & MS PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT

Vinay Anil Lilani, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 20(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4455/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 May 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh, Vinay Anil Lilani Vs. Income Tax Officer- 20(3)(4) 8/19 Mehul Apartments Room No. 511, 5Th Floor Kanti Nagar, J.B. Nagar Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug Andheri (E), Mumbai 400050 Parel, Mumbai 400051 Pan/Gir No. :Aappl0210L Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Kirit S. SanghviFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, JCIT
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 41

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Chetan Balubhai Sanena, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 32(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3849/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 May 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh, Chetan Balubhai Sanena Vs. Income Tax Officer – 32(1)(2) B-405, Rainbow Apartments Bandra Kurla Complex C.S. Road, Dahisar (E) Mumbai 400051 Mumbai 400068 Pan/Gir No. :Acipp3106F Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Gunjan KakkadFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 144Section 148

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Suresh Rizumal Bhojwani, Nagpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(1), Nagpur

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

ITA 288/NAG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur13 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

income 14/12/2016, for the year under consideration declaring total income of ` 8,57,410. The said return of income was processed under section 143(1) of the Act. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and notices under section 143(2) and 142(1) were duly issued

OSD Coke (Consortium) Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir. 5(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 376/KOL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 May 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri J. M. Thard, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Bibekananda Madhu, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 115JSection 143Section 143(1)Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT

M/S Olympus Suppliers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. PCIT, Cir-2, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1088/KOL/2016[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 May 2024AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.1088/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S Olympus Suppliers Pvt Ltd.……..…………............…...……………....Appellant 15/B, Clive Row, Kolkata-1. [Pan: Aabco0624Q] Vs. Pcit, Circle-2, Kolkata……….…...............................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 10, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 13, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Revision Order Dated 23.03.2015 Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-2, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Pr. Cit’] Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. This Is A Second Round Of Litigation Before Us. Earlier, The Assessee Had Filed Appeal Before This Tribunal Against The Impugned Order Of The Pr. Cit Passed U/S 263 Of The Act, However, The Said Appeal Of The Assessee Was Dismissed Along With Three Other Cases By A Common Order Dated 05.08.2016. Being Aggrieved By The Said Order, The Assessee Preferred Further Appeal Before The Hon’Ble Calcutta High Court Bearing No. Itat/328/2017 Ia No.Ga/2/2017 (Old No.Ga/3184/2017). It Was Pleaded Before The Hon’Ble Calcutta High Court That The Appeal Of The Assessee Was Dismissed Along With Other Appeals, However, The Specific

Section 143(1)Section 151Section 263

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ ‘बी’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH KOLKATA "ी संजय गग