← 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)

Roche Products (India) Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. The Asst Comm of Income Tax-1(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 307/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Ms. Padmavathy S, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.307/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Roche Products (India) Pvt. बिधम/ Acit-1(3)(1) Ltd. Room No. 540, 5Th Floor, Vs. 8Th Floor, 146-B, 166A, Unit Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. No.7, 8 & 9, R City Mall Road, Mumbai-400020. Lal Bahadur Shastri Marg, Ghatkopar (West), Mumbai- 400086. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacr2744K (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Shrihari Iyer Revenue By: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 01/06/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/06/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 09.12.2022 For Ay 2018-19. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Pointed Out That The Adjustment Made By The Cpc U/S 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) Disallowing The Employee’S Contribution Towards Pf/Esic For Belated Deposits Is In Line With The Decision Of The Hon’Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cit (448 Itr 518). Therefore, He Does Not Contest The Action Of The Cpc On Principle As Such. However, His Limited Prayer Is That This Lapse (Of Not Depositing The Employee’S Contribution Within The Due- Date) Was Only In Few Months (Refer Chart Infra). According To Assessee, A Careful Perusal Of The Deposit Of Contribution In The Relevant Government Account Of Pf/Esic, It Would Reveal That Assessee Had Been Depositing More Amount I.E. Advance Amount In The Relevant

For Appellant: Shri Shrihari IyerFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. AR)
Section 143(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND MS. PADMAVATHY S, AM

Protech Exim (India) P Ltd., Mumbai vs. ADIT, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 1089/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1089/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Protech Exim (India) Pvt. बिधम/ Acit, Cpc Ltd. Bangaluru. Vs. C/O G. P. Mehta & Co. Cas, 807, Tulsiani Chambers, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacp3317N (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri G. P. Mehta Revenue By: Shri Dharmvir D Yadav (Sr. Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 27/06/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/06/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 16.03.2023 For Ay. 2019-20. 2. The Ground No. 1 Is General In Nature. 3. The Ground No. 2 Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Action Of The Ao Denying Set-Off Of Business Loss Of Rs.38,487/- Against Other Head Of Income For The Same Assessment Year. 4. Brief Facts Are That The Assessee Had Filed Its Return Of Income For Ay 2019-20 On 21.10.2019 Declaring Taxable Income Of Rs.5,83,870/.- The Return Was Processed By Cpc U/S 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) & Assessed The Income Of The Assessee At Rs.15,87,350/- By Making Disallowance Of Rs.10,03,480/- Out Of Which, Ground No. 2 Emanates I.E. Disallowance Of Rs.38,481/- Which Action Of Cpc Has Been Confirmed By Ld.

For Appellant: Shri G. P. MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Dharmvir D Yadav (Sr. DR)
Section 10(34)Section 143(1)Section 71

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1089/Mum/2023