← 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)

Shankar Packgings Ltd., Mumbai vs. NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 316/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhm/S Shankar Packagings Vs. National Faceless Appeal Limited , 303, Turf Centre, Delhi Estate, Shakti Mills New Delhi Lane,Off. Dr. E. Moses Road, Mahalaxmi (West) Mumbai – 400011 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaacs8076P Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Apurva R. Shah Respondent By : C.T. Mathews Date Of Hearing 12.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 18.05.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The A.O. U/S 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, For A.Y. 2018-19. The Assessee Has Assailed The Impugned Order On The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. In Not Adjudicating The Appellant'S Claim On Merits Of The Issue But Merely Holding That The Appellant Ought To Have Filed An Appeal Against The Intimation Issued Under Section 143(1) & Not Against The Order Rejecting The Proposal U/S. 154. 2. In Not Appreciating That By The Said Action The Nfac Has Therefore Approved An Incorrect Act Done Whilst Processing The Return Filed.

For Appellant: Apurva R. ShahFor Respondent: C.T. Mathews
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

claim on merits of the issue but merely holding that the appellant ought to have filed an appeal against the intimation issued under section 143(1) and not against the order rejecting the proposal u/s. 154. 2. In not appreciating that by the said action the NFAC has therefore approved

Seth Pesotnji Davar Charitable Trust, Mumbai vs. ITO (Exemptions)2(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by assessee is allowed

ITA 2093/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman आअसं.2093/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2015-16) Seth Pestonji Davar Charitable Trust, 209, Dr. D.N.Road, Fort, Mumbai 400 001 Pan: Aaats-0521-J ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer(Exemptions)-2(3), Room No.617, 6Th Floor, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Mumbai – 400 020. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Ms. Sonali Godbole ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Anil Gupta सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 18/05/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 18/05/2022 आदेश/ Order

For Appellant: Ms. Sonali GodboleFor Respondent: Shri Anil Gupta
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 154(3)

Rs.7,78,313/-. The assessee in return of income claimed refund of aforesaid TDS. The return of the assessee was processed under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short ‘the Act’] accepting the returned income, however, the TDS refund claimed by the assessee was restricted ... Rs.17,828/-. The aforesaid adjustment was made by the Central Processing Centre (CPC), Bangalore while processing the return under section. 143(1) of the Act without issuing any notice/affording any opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee filed rectification petition under section. 154 of the Act. The same

Nilkanth Mahadev Bala Hanuman Mandir, Mumbai vs. ITO 31(2) (4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by assessee is allowed, in the terms aforesaid

ITA 2066/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman आअसं.2065/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2017-18) आअसं.2066/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2018-19) Nilkanth Mahadev Bala Hanuman Mandir, Motilal Nagar No.1, Shrirang Sabde Marg, Near Post Office, Motilal Nagar, Goregaon (W) Mumbai 400 104. Pan: Aabtn-6127-G ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax -31(2)(4), Cpc Bangalore, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai 400 051. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Rajesh S. Athavale ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Anil Gupta सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 18/05/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 18/05/2022 आदेश/ Order

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh S. AthavaleFor Respondent: Shri Anil Gupta
Section 12ASection 143(1)

adjustment that could be made u/s. 143(1) of the Act. The ld.Authorized Representative for the assessee submitted that a perusal of section 143(1) of the Act would show that the return of income of the assessee could have been processed u/s. 143(1) only after making adjustment specified ... clause (a) to section 143(1). The case of the assessee does not fall in any of the categories of adjustments specified in clause (a) (supra). The 3 ITA NO.2066/MUM/2021(A.Y.2018-19) ld.Authorized Representative for the assessee further contended that without admitting but assuming that even if adjustment was required

Nilkanth Mahadev Bala Hanuman Mandir, Mumbai vs. CPC, Bangalore Income Tax Officer, 31(2) (4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by assessee is allowed, in the terms aforesaid

ITA 2065/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman आअसं.2065/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2017-18) आअसं.2066/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2018-19) Nilkanth Mahadev Bala Hanuman Mandir, Motilal Nagar No.1, Shrirang Sabde Marg, Near Post Office, Motilal Nagar, Goregaon (W) Mumbai 400 104. Pan: Aabtn-6127-G ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax -31(2)(4), Cpc Bangalore, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai 400 051. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Rajesh S. Athavale ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Anil Gupta सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 18/05/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 18/05/2022 आदेश/ Order

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh S. AthavaleFor Respondent: Shri Anil Gupta
Section 12ASection 143(1)

adjustment that could be made u/s. 143(1) of the Act. The ld.Authorized Representative for the assessee submitted that a perusal of section 143(1) of the Act would show that the return of income of the assessee could have been processed u/s. 143(1) only after making adjustment specified ... clause (a) to section 143(1). The case of the assessee does not fall in any of the categories of adjustments specified in clause (a) (supra). The 3 ITA NO.2066/MUM/2021(A.Y.2018-19) ld.Authorized Representative for the assessee further contended that without admitting but assuming that even if adjustment was required

ACIT CC 22 & 30, Mumbai vs. Murarilal Mittal, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 6808/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 May 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6808/Mum/2014 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Acit Cc –22, Shri Murarilal Mittal, R. No. 404, 4Th Floor, 1601, Marathon बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Heights, P. B. Marg Mumbai-400 020 Jaibharat Oil Mill, Vs. Lower Parel(W), Mumbai-400 013 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan No. Ahnpm8021D (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant : Shri Murli Mohan, Ld. Dr By प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal, Ld. Ar By सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 18.05.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 18.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Impugned Order Dated 24.08.2014 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-39, Mumbai For The Quantum Appeal Of Assessment Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S

For Appellant: Shri Murli MohanFor Respondent: Shri Rajiv
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JM, & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A