“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)

Mallak Specialities Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT 10(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 2045/MUM/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2023AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran, Am & Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Milind Sahasrabudhe, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 154Section 250

provisions of the Act, after availing MAT credit to the tune of Rs. 1,95,46,205/-. The said Return was processed under section 143(1) of the Act on dated 14.05.2015 whereby the amount of Rs. 19,54,61,790/- was allowed as MAT credit. 3.1 Later

Silver Sand Coop Housing Soc Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1425/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blebuilding No. 12, Silver Sands Chs Ltd., Bangalore Post Bag No. 2 S.V. Road, Piramal Nagar Electronic City, Post Office Goregaon (W), Mumbai - 400062 Bangalore - 560100 Pan: Aadas5600G (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 245Section 80P

confirming the disallowance of deduction of Rs. 2,56,358/- under section 80P (2)(d) of the Act 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. 5) The Assessee craves

M/S. Minestone, Mumbai vs. ACIT 18(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 2546/MUM/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm M/S. Minestone Acit-18(2) Room No. 32, 4Th Floor, Plot No. 98, Mumbai -400 020 Sagar Bhavan, Building No.2, Vs. Kantilal M Sharma Marg, Lohar Chawl, Kalbadevi, Mumbai-400 002

For Appellant: Shri K. GopalFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148(1)Section 250

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

Coronation Cigar Co., Mumbai vs. Dy.Comm of Income Taxcircle 17(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1728/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Ms. Padmavathy.Sआअसं.1728/मुं/2022 (िन.व. 2018-19) Coronation Cigar Co. 63, Mg Road, Fort, Mumbai 400 001. Pan: Aaefc-3151-A ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax Circle -17(1) 1St Floor, Kautiliya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai – 400 051. ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Assessee By : S/Shri Falee Bilimoria & Furquan Ahemad Revenue By : Shri Prashant Mahajan सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 12/07/2023 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 22/09/2023 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

For Appellant: S/Shri Falee Bilimoria &For Respondent: Shri Prashant Mahajan

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 234BSection 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Appellant towards the Employees' contribution to Provident Fund under the guise of making a primafacie adjustment under Section 143(1) of the Act and upholding the same under Section 154 of the Act.” 3. Shri Falee Bilimoria appearing on behalf of the assessee submit that the assessee had filed return

Ravindra Walia, Mumbai vs. Asstt Commissioner of Income Tax-11(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1100/MUM/2022[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2023AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: Shri Hiro RaiFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash

Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

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

Ravindra Walia, Mumbai vs. Asstt Commissioner of Income Tax -16(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1099/MUM/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2023AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Shri Hiro RaiFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash

Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

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

Shri Siddhesh Kumar Gaur, Jodhpur vs. ADIT, CPC, ACIT, Circle-3, Bengaluru / Jodhpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 18/JODH/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur22 Sept 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Rajeev Mohan, JCIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 40Section 40A(3)Section 43

appeal is bad in law. 2. Because the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowances made by the learned assessing officer under section 143(1) making the disallowance under section 36(1)(va). 3. Because the learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the alternate plea that even

Atul Ahuja, Faridabad vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Faridabad

Accordingly, ground no. 2 is allowed for

ITA 2858/DEL/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Sept 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2020-21

Section 10Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)Section 44A

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, HON’BLE PRESIDENT AND

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(2), Nagpur vs. M/S Ramsons Ispat Limited, Nagpur

ITA 126/NAG/2018[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur22 Sept 2023AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Gd Padmahshali

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kailash Kanojiya, Sr.DR

Section 132(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153A

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCHES : NAGPUR (THROUGH VIRTUAL HEARING) BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(2), Nagpur vs. M/S Ramsons Ispat Limited, Nagpur

ITA 125/NAG/2018[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur22 Sept 2023AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Gd Padmahshali

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kailash Kanojiya, Sr.DR

Section 132(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153A

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCHES : NAGPUR (THROUGH VIRTUAL HEARING) BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI

Phoenix Poultry, Jabalpur vs. ACIT, Circle 1(1), Jabalpur

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

ITA 76/JAB/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur21 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalephoenix Poultry, Vs. Acit, Circle -1(1) 201, Ratan Colony, Jabalpur, Gorakhpur, Madhya Pradesh. Jabalpur- 482001. Madhya Pradesh. Pan/Gir No. : Aajfp5811H Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : Shri Dhiraj Ghai, Ca Respondentby : Shri, Shiv Kumar. Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 20.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21.09.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi / Cit(A) Passed U/S 143(1)And 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Dhiraj Ghai, CAFor Respondent: Shri, Shiv Kumar. Sr.DR

Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “DB” BENCH, JABALPUR BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE

Arihant Automobile, Jabalpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(2), Jabalpur

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

ITA 28/JAB/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur21 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalearihant Automobiles Vs. Ito, Ward-2(2) 984, Wright Town, Jabalpur Jabalpur-482002, Madhya Pradesh. Madhya Pradesh. Pan/Gir No. : Aahfa2701P Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : None Respondentby : Shri.Shiv Kumar.Sr Dr Date Of Hearing 20.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement .09.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi / Cit(A) Passed U/S 143(1)And 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri.Shiv Kumar.Sr DR

Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “DB” BENCH, JABALPUR BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE

Sikshya Bharati Trust, Banki vs. ITO (Exemption), Cuttack

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stand allowed

ITA 240/CTK/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack21 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicialassessment Year : 2017-18 Sikshya Sikshya Bharat Bharati Trust, Vs. Dcit, Cpc, Bangalore Dcit, Cpc, Bangalore At:College At:College Road, Road, Banki Banki- 75408 Dist: Dist: Cuttack Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aakts 6470 L (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri K.K.Bal, Adv K.K.Bal, Adv Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 21/09 9/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/0 /09/2023 O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A) ,Nfac, Delhi ,Nfac, Delhi Dated 10.5.2023 In Appeal No.Itb Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1052730744 24/1052730744(1) For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Shri K.K.Bal, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri S.C.Mohanty, Shri K.K.Bal, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri S.C.Mohanty, Shri K.K.Bal, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr Dr Appeared For The Ld Sr Dr Appeared For The Revenue.

For Appellant: Shri K.K.Bal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty

Section 143(1)

issued by the CPC. It was the submission that as per was the submission that as per the provisions of section 143(1), before making any adjustment, a show the provisions of section 143(1), before making any adjustment, a show the provisions of section 143(1), before making ... this case, deprecation of Rs.127,831/- was disallowed while processing the return u/s.143(1) but due to technical issue notice under proviso to section 143(1) i.e. prima facie adjustment notice was not triggered to the assessee. Thus, all other details called for vide trailing mail does not arise

Rakesh Mafatlal Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO-19(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2107/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blerakesh Mafatlal Jain V. Income Tax Officer – 19(3)(1) C/O. M.A. Enterprises Mumbai A/4, Madhavji Building 260, S.V.P Road Opp. Alankar Cinema Mumbai – 400004 Pan: Agcpj5330L (Appellant) (Respondent)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI

M/S Tarun Construction Company, Ward No.24, Near Bhagat Singh Chowk, Suratgarh vs. CPC, Bangalore/ ITO, Ward-1, Sriganganagar

In the result, appeals are dismissed

ITA 109/JODH/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur21 Sept 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. Brr Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. P.C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Rajeev Mohan, JCIT-DR

Section 10ASection 139Section 142Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)

account of delayed payment of employees’ contribution towards Provident Fund(PF) and Employees State Insurance (ESI), while processing the returns of income under section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 3. Briefly, the facts are, the assessee is a partnership firm. In the assessment years under dispute ... orally, learned counsel appearing for the assessee has also furnished submissions in writing, which are as under : “Submission:- Adjustment cannot be made under section 143(1)(a)(iv) – as held by the CIT(A) 1. At the outset it is submitted that the adjustmentsthat can be made under section 143