← 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)

Maya Krishnakumar Agrawal, Margao vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, `Bengaluru

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

ITA 30/PAN/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji22 Aug 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury(Through Virtual Hearing) Maya Krishnakumaragrawal, Vs Adit, Cpc, Bengaluru. 1St Floor, Anand Bhawan, Old Station Road, Margao, Goa. Pan: Acwpa 7029 H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ashok Kulkarni, Ar Revenue By : Shri N. Shrikanth, Dr Date Of Hearing : 17/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 22/08/2023 O R D E R Per Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm: This Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Emanates From The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax [Appeals]-2, Panaji (For Short, „Cit(A)‟), Dated 13.09.2021 For A.Y.2019-20 As Per The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. The Order Of The Ld.Cit(A)-2, Panaji, Goa (Hereinafter Referred To As Cit(A)) Is Opposed To Law & Facts Of The Case. 2. The Cit(A) Legally Erred M Holding That The Appellant'S Rectification Application Would Not Fall Within The Scope Of Section 154 Of The Act. Since The Adjustment Made U/S 143 (1) (A) Of The Act Resulting Into An Addition Of Rs. 117,23,809/- Under The Head "Income From Business Or Profession" Was Mainly On Account Of Feeding Errors Crept While Filling Schedule Bp In The Return Of Income, Cit(A) Ought To Have Directed The Adit, Cpc, Bengaluru (Ao) To Entertain The Application Made By The Appellant U/S 154 Of The Act To Correct The Feeding Errors Crept While Filling Schedule Bp Of The Income Tax Return Being Mistakes Apparent From The Record On The Basis Of Material Available On Record. Maya Krishnakumar Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Kulkarni, ARFor Respondent: Shri N. Shrikanth, DR
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 154

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PANAJI BENCH :: PANAJI BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY

M/S. Maa Tarani Logistics Ltd, Joda vs. ACIT Cir.-1(1), Cuttack

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 140/CTK/2023[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack21 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & And Rajesh Kumarassessment Year : 2012-13 M/S Maa Tarani Logistics M/S Maa Tarani Logistics Vs. Acit, Circle Acit, Circle-1(1), Ltd., Ltd., Unchabali, Unchabali, Po: Po: Cuttack Bamabri, Bamabri, Via Via- Joda, Keonjhar Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aaecm 7549 R (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By Assessee By : S/Shri Soumitra Choudhury & Jaydeep Soumitra Choudhury & Jaydeep Chakraborty, Advocates Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Pr. Cit (Osd) Pr. Cit (Osd) Date Of Hearing : 21/08 8/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/0 /08/2023 O R D E R Per Bench 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, Nfac, Delhi, Dated 27.3.2023 In Appeal No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1051397448(1) For The Assessment Year For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. S/Shri Shri Soumitra Choudhury & Jaydeep Chakraborty, Advocates Soumitra Choudhury & Jaydeep Chakraborty, Advocates Appeared For The Assessee & Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld. Pr.Cit (Osd) Appeared For The Assessee & Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld. Pr.Cit (Osd) Appeared For The Assessee & Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld. Pr.Cit (Osd) Appeared For The Reve Appeared For The Revenue.

For Appellant: S/Shri Soumitra Choudhury & JaydeepFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, Pr. CIT (OSD)
Section 127Section 127(2)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 1aSection 234Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH

Shri Mahendra Kumar Goyal, HUF, Pali vs. ITO, Ward-2, Pali

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

ITA 213/JODH/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur17 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteshri Mahendra Kumar Vs. Ito – Ward-2 Goyal Huf, Pali, Marwar, M/S Merita &Co,Ca Pali-306401, 244,Kamalanehru Rajasthan Nagar,Opp;Prakartic Chikitsa Kendra, Chopasni Road, Jodhpur-348008, Rajasthan Pan/Gir No. : Aaehm7139L Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : Shri N. R Mertia, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Nidhi Nair, Jcit -Dr Date Of Hearing 14.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 17.08.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)(Cit(A)-I, Jodhpur Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Fallowing Grounds Of Appeal As Under: Sh. Mahendra Kumar Goyal Huf, Pali. 1. In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals-1), Jodhpur Has Erred In Law & Facts In Maintaining The Disallowance Of Interest Made By Ld. A.O Of Rs. 4,61,473/- (3,11,690/- + 1,49,783/-) By Invoking Sec. 36(1)(Iii) Of The Act Which The Ld. Cit(A) Erroneously & Unjustifiedly Held As Right Actions On The Part Of The Id. A.O. The Actions Being Erroneous & Unjustified May Kindly Be Cancelled. The Hon'Ble Itat May Kindly Allow The Appeal By Allowing The Claimed Interest As Revenue Expenditure.

For Appellant: Shri N. R Mertia, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Nair, JCIT -DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “DB” BENCH, JODHPUR BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI DR. DIPAK P