← 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)

Rishabh Metals and Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. CPC, DCIT -Cir 1(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 327/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singhrishabh Metals & Vs. Dcit, Circle- 1(3)(1) Chemicals Pvt Ltd, Aayakar Bhavan, 4Th Floor, Eros Theater Mk Road, Bldg, J.T.Road, Mumbai-400020. Churchgate, Mumbai-400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacr2214E Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri Pankaj Kumar.Dr Date Of Hearing 23.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 27.06.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Cit(A)- National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), New Delhi Passed U/S 143(1) & 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar.DR
Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 192Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40

erred in confirming the action of the CPC in making adjustments in the returned income which are not permissible under section 143(1) of the Act and thereby determined the total income of Rs.1,01,15,817/- as against Rishabh Metals and Chemicals Pvt Ltd, Mumbai the returned income ... Rs.96,42,584/- in the intimation dated 16.10.2019 issued under section 143(1) of the Act without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.4,33,488/- under section 40 (a)(üi) of the Act on account

Ravikumar Nath (HUF), Mumbai vs. ITO-29(3)-1, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3300/MUM/2019[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jun 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3300/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2005-06) Ravikumar Nath (Huf) बिधम/ Ito-29(3)(1) 204/C-3, Veena Nagar, 305, C-10, Pratykshkar Vs. Mulund West-400080. Bhavan, Bkc, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaghr0075L (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ashwin Chhag Revenue By: Shri Ram Krishn Kedia सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 30/05/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 14/06/2022 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)-40, Mumbai Dated 06.03.2019 For The Assessment Year 2005-06. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Brought To Our Notice 2. That The Assessment In This Case Has Been Re-Opened After Four (4) Years But Within Six (6) Years. However, The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ao Having Re-Opened The Assessment, Not Giving Reasons Recorded For Reopening As Mandated By The Hon’Ble Supreme Court In G.Ku Drive Shaft (2003) 259 Itr 19 (Sc), As Well As The Ld. Cit(A)’S Actions Of Ignoring The Legal Issue Raised Before Him That The Notice U/S 148 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) Was Issued Without Sanction Of The Competent Authority U/S 151 Of The Act. According To The Ld. Ar Despite This Tribunal Directing The Department Representative (Dr) To Produce The Records Of The Case

For Appellant: Shri Ashwin ChhagFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishn Kedia
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151

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

It0 25(3)(4), Mumbai vs. Minal Bharat Patel, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5507/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.5507/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14) Ito-25(3)(4) बिधम/ Minal Bharat Patel Room No. 603, C-10, 6Th 602, Boston House, Suren Vs. Floor, Pratyakshkar Bhavan, Road, Andheri (E), Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400093. Bandra (E), Mumbai- 400093. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacpp5126G (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vasudev Ginde & Kumar Kale Revenue By: Shri Ram Krishn Kedia सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 30/05/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 14/06/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-37, Mumbai Dated 16.07.2018 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual. The Return Of Income Was Filed On 31.07.2013 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.16,36,740/-. The Return Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). Subsequently, The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny By Issue Of Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Act. The Authorized Representative Appeared Before The Ao & Filed Details During The Assessment Proceedings. The Assessee Has Shown Short Term Capital Gain [Stcg] Of Rs.12,18,961/- & Long Term Capital Gain [Ltcg] Of Rs.17.01.85,391/- On Sale Of Shares. The Assessee Claimed Exemption U/S 10(38) Of The Act For The Entire Ltcg. Further, The Assessee Had Also Shown Ltcg Of Rs.1,00,31,538/- On Redemption

For Appellant: Shri Vasudev Ginde & Kumar KaleFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishn Kedia
Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

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

The Nab Workshop for the Blind, Mumbai vs. DCIT(CPC), Banglore, Bangalore

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

ITA 1646/MUM/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyalthe Nab Workshop For Vs. Dcit (Cpc) The Blind, 4Th Floor, Piramal Dr. Annie Besant Road, Chambers, Parel, Worli, Mumbai-400012. Mumbai – 400 030. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaatt3397F Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Gautam Nayak.Ar Respondent By : Shri. Pramod Nikalje.Dr Date Of Hearing 14.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 20.06.2022 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 (Appeal)-1,Mumbai Passed U/S 143(1) & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri. Gautam Nayak.ARFor Respondent: Shri. Pramod Nikalje.DR
Section 11(2)Section 11(3)Section 143(1)

excess application of income, against the deemed income taxable under section 11(3) of Rs.54,38,485, while making the intimation under section 143(1). The NAB Workshop for the Blind, Mumbai 2. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) failed to appreciate that not permitting such set off was at best debatable ... hence could not have been done under section 143(1). 3. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that there is no provision denying such set off of deficit against the deemed income taxable under section 11(3). 2. The brief facts of the case are that