← 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)

Pooja Metal Processors Private Limited, Faridabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

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

ITA 1301/DEL/2021[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 May 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2018-19 Pooja Metal Processors Pvt Ltd., Vs Dcit, Plot No.89, Cpc, Dlf Industrial Estate Phase I, Bangalore. Anangpur, Faridabad – 121 003. Pan: Aaacp9084G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.K. Mishra, Ca Revenue By : Ms Princy Singhla, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 10.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.05.2023 Order Per M. Balaganesh, Am: This Appeal In Ita No.1301/Del/2021 For Ay 2018-19 Arises Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Cit(A)’, In Short] In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2021-22/1034567083(1) Dated 02.08.2021 Against The Order Of Assessment Passed U/S 143(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 17.05.2019 By The Ld. Assessing Officer, Cpc (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Ao’). 2. The First Issue To Be Decided In This Appeal Is As To Whether The Ld.Cit(A) Was Justified In Confirming The Disallowance Made On Account Of Employee’S Contribution To Provident Fund/Employees’ State Insurance Scheme (Pf/Esi) Which Was Not Deposited Till The Due Date Prescribed Under The Respective Acts, But, Were Duly Remitted To The Account Of The Government On Or Before The Due Date Of Filing The Return Of Income U/S 139 (1) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri P.K. Mishra, CAFor Respondent: Ms Princy Singhla, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 32Section 43

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : H : DELHI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH

Simple Logic It Private Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT (A) NFAC, Mumbai

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

ITA 1831/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhsimple Logic It Private Vs. Commissioner Of Income Limited, 10, Arihant, Tax (Appeals) 90 Feet Road, National Faceless Appeal Ghatkopar (E) Centre (Nfac) Maharashtra – 400077 Delhi स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aancs3390M Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Sanjeev Ranjan Date Of Hearing 11.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 17.05.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): The Present Appeal Filed By The Assesse Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Nfac, Delhi Dated 18.08.2021 For A.Y. 2019-20. The Assesse Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. The Learned Cit(A)- Nfac, Delhi Erred In Disallowing Claim Of Esic & Provident Fund Even Though The Payment Was Made Within Due Date & Added It To The Total Income Of The Appellant. 2. The Learned Cit(A)- Nfac, Delhi Failed To Consider The Submission Given In Tabular Form Wherein The Esic & Pf Paid Date Wise Were Given. 3. The Learned Cit(A)- Nfac, Delhi, Failed To Consider That The Appellant Has Made Payment On & Before 15/04/2019 Which Within The Due Date As Mentioned In Sec 36(1) (Va) & Much More Prior To Due Date Of Filling Of Roi As The Due Date For The Ay 2019-20 Which Was Extended To 31/10/2019 & Therefore The Assessee Is Eligible For Deduction Of Payment For Esic & Provident Fund Provident. 4. The Learned Cit(A)- Nfac, Delhi, Failed To Consider Various Judgements Covering The Subject Matter.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sanjeev Ranjan
Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)

P a g e | 1 Simple Logic IT Private Ld. Vs. CIT (A) NFAC, Delhi IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE