← 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)

Shri Chetas Karamshi Nandu, Mumbai vs. ITO-Ward-22(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1589/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhchetas Karmshi Nandu Vs. Ito 22(1)(3) B/304, Jay Apartment, Room No. 314, 3 Rd Floor, Nehru Road, Piramal Chambers, Parel Mumbai-400055 Mumbai-400012 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aijpn0030C Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. Devendra JainFor Respondent: Shri. Prakash Kishinchandani
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69C

paper book. He submitted that in the reasons recorded it is stated that return of income filed by the assessee was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act, however, in the case of the assessee the assessment was completed under Section 143(3) of the Act. In the entire ... Assessing Officer wherein it is mentioned that the assessee has declared income of Rs 1,98,120/- and same was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act however in the reasons recorded the correct fact that assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Act was also passed

Gautam Technocast, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 2335/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran, Hon’Ble & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Hon’Blegautam Technocast, Dy. Cit Cpc, Bangalore. 7/12, Meckone House, Vs. 369, Bhandarkar Road, Matunga East, Mumbai 400 019. Pan Aabfg8700E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Kishore ShahFor Respondent: Shri Paresh Deshpande, Sr AR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “G”, MUMBAI Before Shri B R Baskaran, Hon’ble Accountant Member, & Shri

Delhi Policy Group (Reg), New Delhi vs. ITO(E), Ward 1(3), Delhi

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

ITA 191/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri S. Krishnan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. DR
Section 10(37)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 28Section 34

deducted at source in respect of interest income declared in the return of income. The Assessing Officer processed the case under section 143(1) without making any adjustment to the income disclosed by the assessee and a refund was accordingly issued. Thereupon, the assessee filed an application under section ... return of income. There was no claim before the AO at the time of processing of return. It is beyond the power under section 143(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961 to admit such claim. Further claim in itself is not self evident so it is not rectifiable

Shri Vaishnav Plolytechnic College Govn by vs. K Market Tech Education Society, Indorevs.the CIT-CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the assesse is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 356/IND/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore26 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Vaishnav Polytechnic Dcit, Cpc College, Governed By Vsk Bangalore Vs. Technical Education Society (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Aafts9636P Assessee By Ms. Nisha Lahoti & Shri V. Bansal, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 26 .10.2023

Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 57

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY

Sudarshan Chitlangia, Jaipur vs. The Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 507/JPR/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Oct 2023AY 2021-22

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Abdulkadir Jawadwala, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anup Singh, Addl. CITa
Section 139(1)Section 154Section 224ASection 234Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 90

Even otherwise, the said Form 67 filed by the assessee before the tax authorities was available before the AO when the intimation under section 143(1) of the Act dated 25.11.2021 was passed. Therefore, in such circumstances, in my view, there were no reasons with the tax authorities for making

Vinayak Education Trust, Aaradi Chhak, Bhadrak vs. ITO Exemption, Cuttack

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 273/CTK/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack25 Oct 2023AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Sandeep Kumar Jena, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)

appeal against the order u/s.143(1) of the Act issued by the CPC. It was the submission that as per the provisions of section 143(1) of the Act, before making any adjustment, a show cause notice has to be issued to the assessee. It was the submission that ... quashed. 3. At the time of hearing, Ld.Sr. DR was asked to show the show cause notice issued as per the proviso to Section 143(1) of the Act before issuance of the intimation u/s.143(1) of the Act. The Sr. DR was unable to 2 show the copy

Pradeep Mahavir Sharma, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Mumbai

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

ITA 2012/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhpradeep Mahavir Sharma Vs. Ito 32(2)(5) B-501, Vasant Marvel Kautilya Bhawan, Avenue Grace Chsl Off Western 3, Near Videsh Bhavan, Expressway Highway, G Block Bkc, Borivali East, Bandra East, Mumbai-400066 Mumbai-400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Avzps8060Q Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Prakash Kishinchandani
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 50C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Pradeep Mahavir Sharma Vs. ITO

Prabha Anil Gandhi, Mumbai vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengalur

ITA 1647/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleprabha Anil Gandhi V. Adit, Centralized Processing Centre Plot No. 70-L, Central Avenue 1St Floor, Prestige Alpha No 48/1 48/2 Beratenaagrahara Begur Plaza Hotel Lane, Chembur Hosur Rd, Uttarahalli Hobli Mumbai - 400071 Bengaluru, Karnataka 560100 Pan: Acqpg9999J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 50CSection 54E

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “C”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI

Master Polishers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands dismissed

ITA 1762/MUM/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ujjawal Kumar Chavan, Sr
Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 34(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI N. K. CHOUDHRY, JM & SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM

Bihari Lal Menghani, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-34(1), New Delhi

ITA 2893/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Delhi25 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2017-18 Bihari Lal Menghani, Dcit 2Nd Circle – 34 (1) Wz-13, Floor, Bindra Vs New Delhi Market, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi Pan No.Aaffb5151N (Appellant) (Respondent)

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. N. K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH

Padma Dhurway, Durg vs. Income Tax Officer-1(1), Bhilai, Durg

ITA 272/RPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur25 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 272/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Padma Dhurway, Near Pawan Kirana Store, Sangram Chowk, Prem Nagar, Sikola Bhata, Durg (C.G.)-491 001. Pan : Aarpd5814C .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(1), Bhilai (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

highly debatable, therefore, the same clearly fell beyond the realm of a prima-facie adjustment under section 143(1) of the Act. The ld. A.R in order to buttress his aforesaid contention had drawn support from the following judicial pronouncements: (i) CIT Vs. M/s. Alom Extrusions Ltd. (2009) 185 Taxman ... absence of Sec. 143(1)(a) being read in the above manner, i.e debatable issues cannot be adjusted by way of intimation under section 143(1)(a), would lead to arbitrary and unreasonable intimations being issued, leading to chaos. In fact, I find that the aforesaid issue in hand

Shri Jan Sewa Sankalp Sansthan, Sehore vs. Exemption Ward, Bhopal

ITA 265/IND/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2016-17 Shri Jan Sewa Sankalp Assistant Director Of Sansthan, Income Tax, बनाम/ 16, Cpc, Opp. New Collector Office, Bangalore Vs. Sehore (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aagas4432 B Assessee By Shri Moksha Solanki, Ca & Shri Soumya Bumb, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 25.10.2023

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 253(5)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY

Vasani Enterprises, Thane vs. ACIT Circle 2, Kalyan

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

ITA 2113/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri. Shriram Bajaj.ARFor Respondent: Shri G.V. Ninawe, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 40Section 43B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 2113 & 2114/Mum/2023

The Sagreshwar Co-Op Credit Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO 20(3)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 1273/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalethe Sagreshwar Co-Op Vs. Ito – 20(3)(4) Credit Society Ltd., Piramal Chambers, 2/178 Ramdoot Co-Op Lalbaug,Parel, Hsg Society Ltd, Mumbai-400012. Curry Road, Parel, Mumbai-400012. Pan/Gir No. : Aacat5941L Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri.Bhupendra Shah.ARFor Respondent: Shri.Umesh Sinha. JCIT-DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER The Sagreshwar Co-Op

Vivek Raghu Shetty, Mumbai vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbaicircle-32(3), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 979/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos.975 To 978 & 979 To 981/Mum/2022 (A.Ys. 2008-09 To 2010-11 & 2012-13 To 2014-15)

For Appellant: AnujKisnadwalaFor Respondent: Ujjawal Kumar
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

P a g e | 1 ITA Nos. 975 to 978 & 979 to 981/Mum/2023 Vivek Raghu Shetty Vs. ACIT, Circle 32

Barcelona Mercantile Company Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Ward 12(1)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 2346/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay N. KapadiaaFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 68

return of income on 24/09/2011, declaring a total income of Rs.7,59,729. The return filed by the assessee was processed under section 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, information was received from DDIT (Investigation), Unit-2(1), Kolkata that the assessee is the beneficiary of circuitous transactions of cash ... case of the assessee. It is undisputed that the original return of income filed by the assessee was merely processed under section 143(1) of the Act and there was no scrutiny assessment of the return filed by the assessee and its books of accounts. Further, the only data available

Surekha Arvind Jain, Mumbai vs. The ITO Ward-32(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2289/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyalsurekha Arvind Jain, Vs. The Ito – 32(1)(1), 301,3Rd Floor,Gulshan Kautilya Bhawan, Bldg No. 1, Juhu Lane, Bkc,Bandra (E), Andheri (W), Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400058. Pan/Gir No. : Adlpj8732E Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Dr.Kishore Dhule. CIT DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT

Vivek Raghu Shetty, Mumbai vs. Asstt CIT, Circle-32(3), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 981/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos.975 To 978 & 979 To 981/Mum/2022 (A.Ys. 2008-09 To 2010-11 & 2012-13 To 2014-15)

For Appellant: AnujKisnadwalaFor Respondent: Ujjawal Kumar
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

P a g e | 1 ITA Nos. 975 to 978 & 979 to 981/Mum/2023 Vivek Raghu Shetty Vs. ACIT, Circle 32

Vivek Raghu Shetty, Mumbai vs. Asstt. Commisssioner of Income Tax, Circle-32(3), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 980/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos.975 To 978 & 979 To 981/Mum/2022 (A.Ys. 2008-09 To 2010-11 & 2012-13 To 2014-15)

For Appellant: AnujKisnadwalaFor Respondent: Ujjawal Kumar
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

P a g e | 1 ITA Nos. 975 to 978 & 979 to 981/Mum/2023 Vivek Raghu Shetty Vs. ACIT, Circle 32

Vivek Raghu Shetty, Mumbai vs. Asstt CIT Circle-32(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 978/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singhvivek Raghu Shetty Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of 1/1, Shrinagar Building, Income-Tax Circle-32(3) Chandavarker Road, M.K. Road, New Marine Borivali (West), Lines, Churchgate, Mumbai – 400092 Mumbai- 400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaeps2750D Appellant .. Respondent [ Appellant By : Anuj Kisnadwala Respondent By : Ajeya Kumar Ojha Date Of Hearing 19.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 11.12.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Filed By The Assesse Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) Nfac, Dated 11.03.2022 For A.Y. 2011-12. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. The Learned Cit (A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Contention Of Assessing Officer That Shares Of M/S Comfort Intec Ltd Is A Penny Stock. 2. The Learned Cit (A) Has Erred In Not Considering The Fact That The Appellant Is Engaged In Business Of Trading In Shares & Offered The Income Generated From The Same Under The Head Of 'Profit & Gain From Business & Profession & Not Claimed Benefit Of Exemption Under Long Term Capital Gain. 3. The Learned Cit (A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Not Deleting Addition Of Entire Sale Consideration Amounting To Rs.20,46,524/- Made By The Assessing Officer U/S. 68 Of The Act Alleging The Same To Be Transaction In Penny Stock.

For Appellant: Anuj KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Ajeya Kumar Ojha
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

P a g e | 1 Vivek Raghu Shetty Vs. ACIT, Circle 32(3) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC