“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)

Vijaykumar Mansukhlal Mehta, Mumbai vs. ITO 19 (3) (5), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3506/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyalvijay Kumar Mansukhlal Mehta, 156, Cooper Compound, T. P. Street, Kumbhar Wada, 6Th Lane, Mumbai-400 004 Pan: Agapm3179N ..... Appellant Vs. Ito 19(3) (5) Piramal Chamber, Mumbai ..... Respondent & Ito 19(3) (5) Piramal Chamber, Mumbai ...... Appellant Vs.

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Usha Gaikwad, Ld. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 148Section 234ASection 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN

Abu Dhabi Investment Authority, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Internaitonal Taxation)-Circle 1(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3415/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI AMARJIT SINGH (Accountant Member)

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 24

Director of Income Tax Centralized Processing Centre (CPC) (hereinafter referred to as 'Ld AO, CPC), Income Tax, Department, Bengaluru, and a intimation under section 143(1) of the Act was issued on 31 3 AY. 2019-20 Abu Dhabi Investment Authority, Mumbai March 2021, wherein the Ld AO had made

Sharangpani Dinkar Pant, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 3(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3353/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalassessment Year: 2018-19 & Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Sharangpani Dinkar Ito It 3(3)(1), Pant, International Tax Ward- 402, Bhoomi Oscar, 3(3)(1), Plot No.16/17, Vs. Air India Building, Sector-9, Mumbai – 400 021 Ghansoli, Navi Mumbai - 400 701 Pan: Aippp0288E (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Balaji V, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Anil Sant, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 13 . 02 . 2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 26 . 02 . 2024 O R D E R Per : Amarjit Singh: Both These Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee For The Same Assessment Year I.E. 2018-19 Against The Two Different Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A) Passed Under Section 250 Of The Act On The Common Issue Of Allowability Of Tds Credit Of Rs.17,59,258/- Which Was Not Allowed By The Ao Vide Order Passed Under Section 154 Of The Act & Under Section 143(1) Of The Act. The Assessee Vide Ita

For Appellant: Shri Balaji V, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant, D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(b)Section 143(1)(c)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250

credit of Rs.17,59,258/- which was not allowed by the AO vide order passed under section 154 of the Act and under section 143(1) of the Act. The assessee vide ITA 2 ITA No.3352/M/2023 & ors. Shri Sharangpani Dinkar Pant No.3352/M/2023 has raised the following grounds before us: “Ground ... Return of Income (ROI) and reflected in Form 26AS as against TDS credit of Rs.1,28,924 allowed in the intimation under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). It is prayed that the position taken by the Ld. Centralised Processing Unit

Sharangpani Dinkar Pant, Mumbai vs. International Tax Ward 3(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3352/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Balaji V, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant, D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(b)Section 143(1)(c)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250

Supermax Personal Care P. Ltd., Thane vs. Dy CIT -3(4), Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed in above terms

ITA 687/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Subhash Gupta & Shri AjinkyaFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, Ld. DR

Section 250Section 32(1)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 92C

interest under section 234C of the Act 10. Erred in computing interest under section 234C of the Act on income determined under section 143(1) of the Act instead of the returned income, thereby levying excess interest of INR 10,396/-. Initiation of Penalty Proceedings under section 270A

Pooja Hardware Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT - 13 (1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3712/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Mr. Vipul Joshi &For Respondent: Mr. H.M. Bhatt, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 35Section 35(1)(i)Section 35(1)(ii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “C” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI SANDEEP

Ropar District Co-Operative Union Limited, Mohali vs. PCIT, Chandigar-1, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 360/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI AAKASH DEEPJAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri M.R.Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum, CIT, DR

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 23Section 24Section 263Section 269USection 53A

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

Saru Enterprises Private Limited, Patiala vs. ACIT/DCIT, Cen. Cir., Patiala

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 271/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Saldi, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Dharamvir, JCIT, Sr. D.R

Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(2)Section 68Section 69Section 69A

assessee didn’t make any retraction and offered the amount so surrendered to tax. Thereafter, the said return of income was processed under section 143(1) on 17/05/2019. Thereafter, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and notice under section 143(2) was issued on 24/09/2019 and various

Sanil Sethu Madhavan, Pune vs. CIT A, Pune

The appeal is ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE

ITA 1051/PUN/2023[18-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Feb 2024

Bench: Hon’Ble Partha Sarathi Choudhury & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1051/Pun/2023 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Sanil Sethu Madhavan 56/4/1, Kondhwa Khurd Lane-12, Nr Ravi Apts, Pune-411048 Pan : Aucpm6579Q . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिधम / V/S. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cpc, Bengaluru . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent द्वधरध / Appearances Assessee By : None For The Assessee Revenue By : Mr Gaurav Singh ‘Ld. Dr’] सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 23/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 23/02/2024 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; This Appeal Is Filed U/S 253(1)(A) Of The Income Tax Act [‘The Act’] By The Assessee Challenging The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Nfac’] Din & Order Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1054731019(1) Dt. 31/07/2023 Passed U/S 250 Of The Act.

For Appellant: None for the AssesseeFor Respondent: Mr Gaurav Singh ‘Ld. DR’]

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 24Section 250Section 250(6)Section 253(1)(a)

॥ आयकर अपीलीय न्यायाधिकरण, पुणे ‘एस.एम.स .’ न्यायपीठ, पुणे में ॥ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PUNE ‘SMC’ BENCH, PUNE

Eastern Coalfields Ltd., Bardhaman vs. DCIT, Cir. 2, Asansol

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

ITA 1405/KOL/2023[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Feb 2024AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 154

income on 30.10.2004 disclosing loss of Rs.530,88,34,988/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment and notices under sections 143(1) and 143(2) were issued and served upon the assessee. The ld. Assessing Officer has passed the assessment order on 29.12.2006. The assessee

Nataraja Kailar, Bantwal vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Mangalore

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

ITA 96/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri S. Srinivas Kamath, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)

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

Shivanagouda Panchangouda Huded, Dharwad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Hubli

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 74/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Ravikumar Thaned, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 192B

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

Kmb Estates LLP, Bangalore vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bangalore - 1, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 749/BANG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Prasanna N. Urala, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(1)Section 263Section 37Section 37(1)

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

Dhadda Gem N Jewels, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-19(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 663/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Dr. Yogendra T. Wakare

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY, JM & MS PADMAVATHY S, AM I.T.A

R P Soonawala Family Trust, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Cir-19(3), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3078/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआ.अ.सं.3078/मुं/2023 (िन.व. 2018-19) R P Soonawala Family Trust 121, Khushnuma Chs, Carmicheal Stores, Pedder Road, Mumbai – 400026 ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant Pan: Aadtr1540F बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle- 19(3), Room No. 206, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Parel, Mumbai – 400012

For Appellant: Shri Manish RankaFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair

Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

inadvertently offered the long time capital gain on sale of shares to tax. The return of income of the assessee was processed under section 143(1) of the Act, on 29.6.2019 accepting the income offered to tax by the assessee. 2.1 Against the order passed under section 143(1

Pramod Tarade, Raigad vs. CIT ( NFAC ), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 898/PUN/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Feb 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.898/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2021-22 Pramod Tarade, The Commissioner Of A-2, Sai Ameya Chs, Plot V Income Tax,[Nfac]. No.28, Sector-12, Kharghar, S Panvel, Raigad – 410210. Maharashtra. Pan: Aevpt9870L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Tarun G – Ar Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 15/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 22/02/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Delhi Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2021-22 Passed On 24.06.2023 Emanating From Order Under Section 154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 29.12.2022. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under : “1. The Order Of The Cit(A) Nfac, Dt. 24-06-2023 For The A.Y. 2021 -22 Is Contrary To Law & Facts & In The Circumstances Of Pramod Tarade [A]

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 90

with return of income within the due date mentioned under section 139(1) of the Act. The return of income was processed under section 143(1) on 22.03.2022. Assessee was denied credit for foreign tax credit on the ground that Form No.67 was not filed. The assessee filed rectification application ... filed.” Submission of ld.Departmental Representative(ld.DR) : 5. The ld.DR submitted that there was no mistake apparent from record in the order under section 143(1) of the Act. Hence, 6 Pramod Tarade [A] ld.CIT(A) has rightly upheld the order under section 154 of the Act. Findings & Analysis

Bhaskar Rao Chandolu, Suryapet vs. ITO, Ward-1, Suryapet

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 69/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Sheetal Sarin, A.R

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 44ASection 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “B”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA

Esgee Apex Trust, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 1(1), Exemptions, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed and the stay application is dismissed having become infructuous

ITA 251/KOL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Feb 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.251/Kol/2024 Assessment Year : 2021-22 Esgee Apex Trust…………………………..............…...……………....Appellant Duncan House, 4Th Floor, 31, Netaji Subhas Road, Kolkata-1. [Pan:Aaate8362R] Vs. Dcit, Circle-1(1), Exemptions, Kolkata…...…....................…..…..... Respondent S.A No.01/Kol/2024 (A/O I.T.A. No.251/Kol/2024) Assessment Year : 2021-22 Esgee Apex Trust…………………………..............…...……………....Appellant Duncan House, 4Th Floor, 31, Netaji Subhas Road, Kolkata-1. [Pan:Aaate8362R] Vs. Dcit, Circle-1(1), Exemptions, Kolkata…...…....................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Akkal Dudhewala, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 20, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 22, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 10.01.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’).

Section 115ASection 143(1)Section 154Section 2Section 250

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

Kamakshi Jute Industries Ltd., Kolkata vs. Dcic, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, ITA No. 1073/KOL/2023 is dismissed

ITA 1073/KOL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Feb 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Sri Anikesh Banerjee

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण कोलकाता 'एसएमसी' पीठ, कोलकाता में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘SMC’ BENCH, KOLKATA श्री राजेश

S 279 Kottathupatti Pacs Limited, Salem vs. ITO, Ward-1(6), Salem

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1631/CHNY/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Feb 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, IRS, JCIT

Section 119Section 119(2)(b)Section 143(1)Section 80P(2)

Learned First Appellate Authority erred in not considering that the CPC, Bengaluru erred in hurriedly processing the Return of Income by Intimation under Section 143(1) of the Act dated 02/11/2022 without waiting for the outcome of the Delay Condonation Petition filed under Section