← 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)

Nishant Murar Latke, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 3(3), Mumbai

In the result, this ground is “Dismissed”

ITA 2446/MUM/2022[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Dec 2022AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2446/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2009-10) Nishant Murar Latke बिधम/ Ito, Ward-3(3) 2Nd Floor, Rani Mansion, 01, Narayan Nagar Chs Vs. Ltd, Near Hanuman Nagar, Murbad Road, Kalyan Katemnivali, Kalyan- West. 421306. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abtpl6021E (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Dharan Gandhi Revenue By: Smt. Nayana K. Kumar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 28/11/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/12/2022 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. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 29.06.2022 For The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Action Of The Ao Disallowing The Claim Of Purchase From Two Companies On The Allegation That It Was Bogus Purchases (Accommodation Entry); The Companies From Whom Purchases Were Disallowed Are (I) M/S. Vijay Sagar Trading Pvt. Ltd. To The Tune Of Rs.4,88,700/- & (Ii) M/S. Manibhadra Sales Pvt. Ltd. To The Tune Of Rs.10,14,525/- (Total Rs.15,03,225/-).

For Appellant: Shri Dharan GandhiFor Respondent: Smt. Nayana K. Kumar
Section 143(1)Section 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2446/Mum/2022

Uti Employees Sai Samrudhi Co-Op Housing Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. Centralized Processing Unit Income Tax Dept. Bangalore, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2477/MUM/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2477/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2019-20) Uti Employees Sai बिधम/ Centralized Processing Samrudhi Co-Op Housing Unit Income Tax Vs. Society Ltd. Department Bangalore- C/O Uti Amc Ltd. 560500. Uti Tower, Gn Block, Bkc Bandra East, Mumbai- 400051. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aagts8239K (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sachin Lopis Revenue By: Smt. Nayana K. Kumar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 28/11/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 05/12/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Appellant/Assessee Uti Employees Sai Samrudhi Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 25.07.2022 For The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. Assessee Is A Co-Operative Housing Society, Registered Under The Maharashtra Co-Op Society Act 1960. The Society Was Formed By Employees & Nominees Of Unit Trust Of India (Government Entity). The Grounds Of Appeal Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Action Of Ao Not Allowing The Claim Of The Assessee On The Interest Income U/S 80P(2)(D) Of The Income Tax Act

For Appellant: Shri Sachin LopisFor Respondent: Smt. Nayana K. Kumar
Section 143(1)Section 80P(2)(d)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2477/Mum/2022

Dr Axion India Private Limited, Thiruvallur vs. ACIT, NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 301/CHNY/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Dec 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.301/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Dr Axion India Private Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 7, Othappai Village, Uthukottai, Income Tax, Thiruvallur, Tamil Nadu 602 023. Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai. [Pan:Aaccd5071D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Dr. Abishek Murali, F.C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 29.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 02.12.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), New Delhi Dated 04.04.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2018-19 On 21.11.2018 Declaring Total Income Of ₹.9,90,18,014/-. The Case Was Selected For Complete

For Appellant: Dr. Abishek Murali, F.C.AFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 40A(2)Section 41Section 43B

1)(va) of the Act, towards belated payment of PF contribution amounting to ₹.22,67,652/-. Since the appeal against the order under section 143(1) of the Act was pending before the ld. CIT(A), the Assessing Officer made the disallowance ₹.22,67,652/- and brought