“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)

Shashank Merchant, Andheri West, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Circle 26(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 7525/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Piyush Chhajed, C.A. & Shri Veetrag Chhajed – CA

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 54Section 54F

that the assessee filed the return of income declaring a total income of Rs. 2,03,91,960/-, which was processed under section 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny. During the course of the assessment Shashank Merchant proceedings, the Learned Assessing Officer

Chanda Bharech Beneficiary Trust, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 33(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3062/KOL/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Mar 2026AY 2022-2023

Bench: The Bench That The Issue Is Squarely Covered By The Special Bench Of The Mumbai In The Case Of Araadhya Jain Trust Vs. Ito, Ita No. 4272/Mum/2024, A.Y. 2023-24, Order Dated 09.04.2025, Wherein A Similar Issue Has Been Decided In Favour Of The Assessee. The Ld. Ar Therefore, Prayed That The Issue May Be Kindly To Be Decided In The Light Of Said Decision By Following The Same As The Facts Are Similar.

Section 143(1)Section 164Section 167BSection 2Section 250

calculated based on the slab applicable to the individual. Pertinent to state that the assessee is discretionary trust, and the order under Section 143(1) of the Act was passed by the AO-CPC on 24.12.2021, wherein the total income of the assessee trust was assessed incorrectly ... passed the rectification order dated 21.05.2024 wherein surcharge @ 37% was levied on the assessee which was not therein the original order passed under Section 143(1) of the Act. Consequent to the demand of ₹ 54,600/- was raised. 6. Thereafter, the assessee filed appeal before

Chanda Bharech Beneficiary Trust, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 33(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3061/KOL/2025[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Mar 2026AY 2021-2022

Section 143(1)Section 164Section 167BSection 2Section 250

Chanda Bharech Beneficiary Trust, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 33(2), Kolkata

ITA 3060/KOL/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Mar 2026AY 2020-2021

Section 143(1)Section 164Section 167BSection 2Section 250

calculated based on the slab applicable to the individual. Pertinent to state that the assessee is discretionary trust, and the order under Section 143(1) of the Act was passed by the AO-CPC on 24.12.2021, wherein the total income of the assessee trust was assessed incorrectly ... passed the rectification order dated 21.05.2024 wherein surcharge @37% was levied on the assessee which was not therein the original order passed under Section 143(1) of the Act. Consequent to the demand of ₹ 54,600/- was raised. 6. Thereafter, the assessee filed appeal before

Ampi Finance Limited, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-4(3), Kolkata

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2831/KOL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: the Bench that the re-opening of

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 250Section 69C

assessee SPIL was a joint venture between SMC and MSIL. It filed its return declaring certain taxable income. The return was processed under section 143(1) and then picked up for scrutiny. Notices under section 143(2) were issued. Subsequently, the High Court passed an order approving the Scheme

Khalek Biswas, Basirhat vs. DCIT, Circle 49(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1486/KOL/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Mar 2026AY 2013-2014

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)

Section 131Section 143(1)Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, KOLKATA SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A

Dalmia Devcon Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-12(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1336/KOL/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Mar 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, KOLKATA SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A

Bhawarlal S Jain, Vijayapura vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 & Tps, Bijapur

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

ITA 2138/BANG/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Sudheendra BR, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Azhar Zain VP, CIT(DR)

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 148Section 250Section 69A

being 2.65% of Sales) and net profit of Rs. 4,22,420/- (being 0.55 % of sales). The return was processed under section 143(1) of the Act. 4.1 Subsequently, the AO received information that assessee has made deposit of Rs. 6,58,27,957/- into the bank account held with

Chitradurga Zilla Reddy Jana Sangh(R), Chitradurga vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 Exemption, Hubli

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

ITA 1625/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Sri Sandeep Chalapathy, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Shivanand Kalakeri, D.R

Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 250

ITANo.1625/Bang/2025 Chitradurga Zilla Reddy Jana Sangha (R), Chitradurga IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Mangalore vs. Raj Diamonds, Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed &

ITA 1361/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Sri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Subramanian, D.R

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144(3)Section 148Section 153CSection 250

ITANo.1361/Bang/2025 & CO 20/Bang/2025 M/s. Raj Diamonds, Mumbai IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B’’BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI

Parvati Sales Corporation, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 24(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the Assessee’s Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 485/MUM/2026[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryshri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah a/wFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe (Sr. DR.)

Section 143(1)Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “H”, MUMBAI MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI GIRISH

Grant Road (W) Omkar Co-Operative Housing Soc Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 260/MUM/2026[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ashok MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr.DR

Section 143(1)Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(1)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “H-SMC” BENCH: MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI

Grant Road (W) Omkar Co-Operative Housing Soc Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 259/MUM/2026[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ashok MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr.DR

Section 143(1)Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(1)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “H-SMC” BENCH: MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI

Marigold Meridian Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward, Mumbai

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

ITA 9072/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(19)Section 250Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

Investment of such funds in Co-operative Banks does not affect eligibility for deduction u/s 80P(2)(d). 7. Erroneous Invocation of Section 143(1)(a)(ii) The Learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the adjustment made u/s 143(1)(a)(ii) by CPC on the ground of "incorrect claim ... fact that eligibility of deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) is a debatable and adjudicatory issue, which cannot be adjusted in an intimation under Section 143(1). 8. Failure to Consider Disclosures and Supporting Evidence The CIT(A) erred by failing to appreciate that the assessee had duly disclosed the interest

Marigold Meridian Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-41(2)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 9071/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(19)Section 250Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

Marigold Meridian Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-41(2)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 9070/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(19)Section 250Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

Rekhaben Sharadkumar Mehta, Mumbai vs. Ward 42(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, Grounds No

ITA 8318/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Bijayananda Prusethrekhaben Sharadkumar Vs Ito Ward 42(1)(4) Mehta Room No.733, Kautilya Bhawan, 211 Tiwari Bhawan, S Modi Bkc, Mumbai 400051 Road, Kandivali West, Mumbai-400067 Pan:Ahppm8680G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Rushabh MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Bhagirath Ramawat (SR DR)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 151Section 250Section 69BSection 92A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “K (SMC)”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BIJAYANANDA

Mrigesh Gaurav, Bangalore vs. ITO Ward 42(2)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 7988/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand V Mahadeokar

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 5(2)Section 6Section 9(1)(ii)

Income-tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year 2018-19. The impugned order arises out of the intimation issued under section 143(1) of the Act dated 04.11.2019 by the Centralised Processing Centre (CPC), Bengaluru. ITA No. 7988/Mum/2025 Mrigesh Gaurav, Mumbai 2. The assessee is an individual deriving income primarily ... assessee filed his return of income declaring total income of Rs. 2,38,160/-. The return was processed by the CPC, Bengaluru under section 143(1) of the Act on 04.11.2019. In the said intimation, the CPC granted credit of Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) of Rs. 1

Portescap India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in light of aforesaid directions

ITA 7479/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year : 2019-20 Portescap India Private Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of Unit No. 101, Tower Ii, Income Tax, Seepz Sez, Vs. Circle-2(3)(1), Andheri East, Room No. 552, 5Th Floor, Seepz S.O., Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400096. M.K.Road, Pan : Aaack4896K Mumbai-400020. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Pranay Gandhi A/W. Shri Lekh Mehta, For Revenue : Shri R.A. Dhyani, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 17-02-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 05-03-2026 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M :

For Appellant: Shri Pranay Gandhi a/wFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani, CIT-DR

Section 10ASection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 234BSection 250Section 43B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “C” BENCH : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP

Dharmbati, Faridabad vs. Income Tax Inspector Faridabad, Faridabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5672/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2018-19 Dharmbati, Vs. Income Tax Inspector, H. No. 523, Chandawali, Faridabad Ballabhgarh, Faridabad Pan: Azipb6400G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Ms. Monika Singh, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 05.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 05.03.2026 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2018-19, Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [In Short, The “Cit(A)/Nfac”], Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2025-26/1077406804(1), Dated 23.06.2025 Involving Proceedings Under Section 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’). Case Called Twice. None Appears At The Assessee’S Behest. He Is Accordingly Proceeded Ex-Parte. 2. It Emerges During The Course Of Hearing That The Sole Substantive Issue Between The Parties Is That Of Correctness Of The Learned Lower Authorities’ Action Assessing The Assessee’S Interest Component Of Land Acquisition Compensation U/S 28 Of The Land Acquisition Act, 1894, While Invoking Section 57(Iv) R.W.S. 56(1)(A) R.W.S. 145A(B) Of The Act. 3. Learned Sr. Dr Representing The Department Vehemently Argued That The Instant Issue Is No More Res Integra In Light Of Mahender Pal Narang Vs. Cbdt (2020) 423 Itr 13 (P&H) As Well As Pcit Vs. Inderjit Singh Sodhi Huf (2024) 161 Taxmann.Com 301 (Del.) Wherein The Department Has Succeeded Before Their Lordships That The Impugned Interest Component Ought To Be Assessed As Income From “Other” Sources Only. 4. We Have Given Our Thoughtful Consideration To The Assessee’S Pleadings & Revenue’S Foregoing Vehement Contention. It Emerges That This Tribunal’S Recent Decision In Pawan Kumar Vs. Pcit (2024) 159 Taxmann.Com 61 (Del.-Trib.) Has Distinguished The Said Case Law As Under:

Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

individual. He filed his return for AY 2018-19 on 29.08.2018 declaring income of Rs. 6,35,470/-. His return was processed under section 143(1)(a) on 28.06.2019. His case was selected for complete scrutiny assessment under the e-assessment Scheme, 2019 on two issues, namely refund claim ... income from other sources and claimed deduction for 50% as per section 57(iv) of the 1961 Act. The return was processed under section 143(1) of the Act. An application under section 264 was made claiming that by mistake the assessee treated the interest income as income from other