← 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)

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 4(3), Mumbai vs. M/S Lush Hotels and Entertainment Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 2700/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2700/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Dcit, Central Circle-4(3) बिधम/ M/S. Lush Hotels & Room No.1921, 19Th Floor, Entertainment Ltd. Vs. Air India Building, Nariman (M/S. Lush Hospitality Ltd.) 10, Homi Modi Street, 2Nd Point, Mumbai-400021. Floor, Above Kapal Bank, Fort, Mumbai-400023. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcl2464P (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri N. R. Agrawal Revenue By: Shri Mehul Jain (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 13/01/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/03/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 15.02.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -02, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2013- 14. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Justified In Deleting The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer On Account Of Share Application Money Received From M/S. Third Eye Infrastructure Ltd. In Spite Of The Fact That It Had No Taxable Income & Filed Its Return Of Income At Rs. Nil For The Same Assessment Year. A.Y.2013-14 2. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Justified In Deleting The Addition Without Appreciating The Facts That The Parties From Whom M/S. Teil Had Received Funds Were Not Having Creditworthiness Vis-A-Vis The Amount Paid To M/S. Teil By Them Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri N. R. AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain (Sr. AR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM आयकर

ACIT, Mumbai vs. Jasmino Polymertech Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 5738/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 5738/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Acit बिधम/ Jasmino Polymertech Pvt. 5Th Floor, Room No.506, Ltd. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. L-61, Midc Industrial Area, Taloja, Raigad, Maharashtra- Road, Mumbai-400020. 410208. & Cross Objection No.41/Mum/2021 आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 5738/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Jasmino Polymertech Pvt. बिधम/ Acit-6(3)(1) 5Th Floor, Room No.506, Ltd. Vs. L-61, Midc Industrial Area, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Taloja, Raigad, Maharashtra- Road, Mumbai-400020. 410208. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacj5175G (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Ujjawal Kumar Assessee By: Shri Devendra Jain सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 19/01/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/03/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue As Well As Assessee Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeal As Well As Cross-Objection Against The Order Dated 21.05.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2010-11. C.O. No.41/Mum/2021 A.Y.2010-11 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Shri Devendra JainFor Respondent: Shri Ujjawal Kumar
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 40

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM AND AMARJIT SINGH, AM आयकर अपील

M/S. Asia Power Projects Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result appeals filed by assessee as well as revenue stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 59/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Asia Power Projects Pvt. The Deputy Ltd., Commissioner Of No. 6, Lakeside Residency, 4 Income Tax, Annaswamy Mudaliar Road, Circle – 11 (1), Bangalore – 560 042. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aadca0485B Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2011-12 (By Revenue) : Shri Chavali Narayan, Ca & Assessee By Shri Keerthi Narayan, Ca : Shri Srinath Sadanala, Addl. Revenue By Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 15-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 07-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Cross Appeals Are Filed By Assessee As Well As Revenue Against The Order Dated 09.09.2016 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-1, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2011-12 On Following Grounds Of Appeal. “The Grounds Of Appeal Listed Below Are Without Prejudice To Each Other. 1. That The Order Of The Learned Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax (`A0') Dated 31 January 2014 & The Order

Section 115JSection 195Section 263Section 37Section 37(1)

earlier years. The Assessee also declared ‘Nil’ income under MAT after claiming set off of brought forward losses. The return was processed under section 143(1) of the act and was selected for scrutiny. Accordingly, notice under section 143(2) was served on assessee. In response to the statutory notices

Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S Asia Power Projects Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result appeals filed by assessee as well as revenue stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 211/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Asia Power Projects Pvt. The Deputy Ltd., Commissioner Of No. 6, Lakeside Residency, 4 Income Tax, Annaswamy Mudaliar Road, Circle – 11 (1), Bangalore – 560 042. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aadca0485B Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2011-12 (By Revenue) : Shri Chavali Narayan, Ca & Assessee By Shri Keerthi Narayan, Ca : Shri Srinath Sadanala, Addl. Revenue By Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 15-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 07-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Cross Appeals Are Filed By Assessee As Well As Revenue Against The Order Dated 09.09.2016 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-1, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2011-12 On Following Grounds Of Appeal. “The Grounds Of Appeal Listed Below Are Without Prejudice To Each Other. 1. That The Order Of The Learned Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax (`A0') Dated 31 January 2014 & The Order

Section 115JSection 195Section 263Section 37Section 37(1)

earlier years. The Assessee also declared ‘Nil’ income under MAT after claiming set off of brought forward losses. The return was processed under section 143(1) of the act and was selected for scrutiny. Accordingly, notice under section 143(2) was served on assessee. In response to the statutory notices

Himanshu Vasantrai Doshi HUF, Mumbai vs. ITO 23(2)-3, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby partly allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 4352/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 4352 To 4354/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years:2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011 -12) Mr. Himanshu Vasantrai बिधम/ Ito-23(2)(3) 1609, 16Th Floor, Air India Doshi Huf Vs. 29/Cc/4, Ambika Building, Nariman Point, Apartment, Nahur Road, Mumbai-400021. Survodaya Nagar, Mulund (W), Mumbai-400080. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 3688 To 3690/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12) बिधम/ Ito-29(1)(4) Mr. Himanshu Vasantrai C-10, 1St Floor, Pratyaksha Doshi Huf Vs. Kar Bhavan, Bkc, Bandra 29/Cc/4, Ambika (E), Mumbai-400051. Apartment, Nahur Road, Survodaya Nagar, Mulund (W), Mumbai-400080. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaahh6248D (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Bhupendra Shah Revenue By: Shri Shambhu Yadav सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 11/01/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02/03/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Jm): The Assessee As Well As Revenue Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Different Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -40, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys. 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12. Ita. No.4352/Mum/2016

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Shri Shambhu Yadav
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM