← 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)

Mukesh Vinodkumar Singh, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 2(5). Thane, Mumbai

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

ITA 38/MUM/2023[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2023AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.38/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Mukesh Vinodkumar Singh बिधम/ Ito-2(5), Thane Gala No. 5 Saisneha Cit/Nfac. Vs. Industrial Estate Near Ekvira Gas Godown Bhayander (E), Mumbai- 401105. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Bmpps6780N (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri D. C. Saboo & Shyam Saboo Revenue By: Shri Anil Gupta सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 02/03/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/05/2023 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 29.11.2022 For Ay. 2009-10. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Action Of The Ao By Making Addition Of 100% Alleged Bogus Purchases While Accepting The Sales Shown By The Assessee. 3. Brief Facts As Noted By The Ao Is That The Assessee Had Filed Roi Declaring Total Income At Rs.3,99,174/- On 29.09.2009 For Ay. 2009-10 Which Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). Later, The Ao Received An Information From The Maharashtra Sales Tax Department, Mumbai That Certain Persons Were Providing Accommodation Entries/Bills To Facilitate Beneficiaries Like Assessee To Book Bogus Purchases In The Books Without Actual

For Appellant: Shri D. C. Saboo & Shyam SabooFor Respondent: Shri Anil Gupta
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 147

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.38/Mum/2023

Ghatkopar Sahajivan Co-Op Housing Society Limited, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal), Mumbai

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

ITA 825/MUM/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2023AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Ms. Padmavathy Sghatkopar Sahajivan Nfac Co-Op.Housing Society Mumbai-400020. बनाम/ Ltd., Sulsa House Plot Vs. No.26, Nath Pai Nagar, Gahtkopar East, Mumbai-400077. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacag6938Q (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant By : None ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Anil Gupta.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing 23/05/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 24/05/2023 आदेश / Order Per Pavan Kumar Gadale - Jm: The Assessee Has Filed An Appeal Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2016-17. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:- 1. "Cpc/Acit 27(1), Mumbai Has Erred While Making Adhoc Disallowance Of Rs.470220/-In Intimation U/S.143(1) & Also In Rectification U/S.154. 2 Ghatkopar Sahajivan Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Anil Gupta.DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & MS. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT

Income Tax Office-20(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Crystal Corporation, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed

ITA 823/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Ms. Padmavathy Sito-20(1)(1), M/S. Crystal 110,1St Floor, Piramal Corporation, 4A/4B, बनाम/ Chamber, Ground Floor, Opp. Vs. Lalbaug,Parel, Annex Building, Old Mumbai-400012. Anjirwadi, Mazgaon, Mumbai-400010. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacfc7226Q (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri.Anil Gupta.Dr ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : None. सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing 22/05/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 24/05/2023 आदेश / Order Per Pavan Kumar Gadale - Jm: The Revenue Has Filed An Appeal Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2011-12. The Revenue Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:- 1. "Whether On The Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Correct In Restricting The Addition Made On Account Of Bogus Purchase To 6% Of Total Bogus Purchases Ignoring The Fact That The Sales

For Appellant: Shri.Anil Gupta.DRFor Respondent: None
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & MS. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT

Jps Plastics Private Limited, Meerut vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Meerut

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

ITA 3053/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2017-18 Jps Plastics Private Limited, Vs Dcit, C/O M/S Akj & Associates, Circle-1(1)(1), Chartered Accountants, Meerut. 1St Floor, Deep Complex, Begum Bridge Road, Meerut, Uttar Pradesh - 250 001. Pan: Aaacj3433B (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Arun Jain, Ca Revenue By : Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 23.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.05.2023 Order Per M. Balaganesh, Am: This Appeal In Ita No.3053/Del/2022 For Ay 2017-18 Arises Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi, [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Cit(A)’, In Short] In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1047466981(1) Dated 17.11.2022 Against The Order Of Assessment Passed U/S 143(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 14.03.2019 By The Ld. Assessing Officer, Cpc, Bangalore (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Ao’). 2. The Only Issue Raised By The Assessee Before Us Is That Whether The Ld.Cit(A) Was Justified In Deciding The Appeal Without Condoning The Delay In Filing Of The Appeal Before Him By 696 Days & Without Adjudicating The Issue On Merits.

For Appellant: Shri Arun Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 32

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : C : DELHI BEFORE SHRI C.M. GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH