“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)

Shreeram Constructions, Bhopal vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), Delhi

In the result the “Impugned order” is set aside as and by

ITA 481/IND/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshishreeram Construction, Commissioner Of बनाम/ Shop No.2,New Shri Ram Income-Tax Vs. Parisar, Phase I Khajuri Kala, (Appeals) Bhopal, Bhopal (Pan:Abgfs5939P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Govind Rinwa, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 09.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 27.02.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 37(1)Section 40

आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, इंदौर"ायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND

Subhash Chandra Agrawal, Vidisha vs. ITO, Vidisha

Appeal is allowed

ITA 354/IND/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2019-20 Subhash Chandra Ito, Agrawal, Vidisha बनाम/ Galla Mandi, Vs. Vidisha (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Afrpa8769A Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal & Shri Jaideep Jain, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 27/02/2026

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 50C

Page 2 of 10 Subhash Chandra Agrawal ITA No. 354/Ind/2025 – AY 2019-20 processing return of assessee u/s 143(1), the AO invoked section 143(1)(a)(ii), adopted the figure of Rs. 80,00,000/- as full value of consideration in terms of section 50C and, accordingly, made ... harped on Ground No. 1 raised by assessee to contend that the impugned addition/upward adjustment made by AO is outside the scope of section 143(1)/143(1)(a)(ii) and hence illegal and liable to be annulled. 5. In support of his contention, Ld. AR relied upon following decisions

Charak Helth Care & Rural Development Society, Lucknow vs. DCIT-CC-2, Lucknow

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

ITA 412/LKW/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow27 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Suyash Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Vachaspati Tripathi, CIT DR

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 234ASection 250

wherein the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal assessee against the orders of the Assessing Officer under section 143(1) that passed for the A.Y. 2013-14 on 15.06.2020. The grounds of appeal are as under:- “1. 1 Because the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) is contrary ... section 12AA was not provided and the income of the assessee was assessed at Rs. 3,82,80,430/-. The order under section 143(1) was passed on 30.03.2015 therefore, as per the ld. CIT(A), the appeal was required to be filed within 30 days from the receipt

B.V.Kapadia HUF, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 2879/KOL/2025[201-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Feb 2026

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 139Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 199Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘SMC’ BENCH AT KOLKATA Before SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA

Xerago E-Biz Services Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward-3(3), Chennai

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

ITA 4067/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Feb 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 4067/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 Xerago E-Biz Services Pvt. The Income Tax Officer, Ltd., Vs. Corporate Ward 3(3), Plot No.80 & 93, Developed Plot, Chennai Xerago Towers, Industrial Estate, Perungudi, Chennai – 600 096 Pan: Aaacx 0387J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri H. Yeshwanth Kumar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Aroon Praasad, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.02.2026 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27.02.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R Per George George K, Vp: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Addl./Jcit(A), Varanasi Order Dated 31.10.2025 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2021-22. :- 2 -: 2. The Grounds Raised Read As Follows:- 1. For That The Order Of The Additional / Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Is Contrary To Law, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & At Any Rate Is Opposed To The Principles Of Equity, Natural Justice & Fair Play.

For Appellant: Shri H. Yeshwanth KumarFor Respondent: Shri Aroon Praasad, Addl.CIT

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 90

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी जॉज" जॉज

Sri Bannari Amman Fresh Fruit, Chennai, Tamil Nadu vs. The Income Tax Officer, Non-Corporate Ward - 15(1), Chennai, Tamil Nadu

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3702/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3702/Chny/2025 िनधा$रण वष$ /Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Mr. V. Tharish, CAFor Respondent: Dr. M.D. Vijay Kumar, JCIT

Section 143(1)Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 149(1)(b)Section 151Section 250Section 68

declaring total income of Rs.8,34,984/. The return Sri Bannari Amman Fresh Fruit :- 2 -: was processed under section 143(1) accepting the income returned. The assessing officer (AO) received information that the assessee has deposited cash during the demonetisation period to the tune of Rs.38,43,207 and passed

Amit Satpathy, Mumbai vs. ITO-42(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 5930/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhailamit Satpathy, Flat No.404, Tower A, Imperial Heights, Oshirwara, Goregaon (West) ……………. Appellant Mumbai – 400104 Pan: Arrps8419D V/S Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Processing Centre, Assistant Director Of Income Tax, …………….Respondent Central Processing Centre, Income Tax Department, Bengaluru - 560500

For Appellant: Shri Siddhesh ChauguleFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 234BSection 250Section 90(2)

Additional / Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 1, Surat [“learned Addl./Joint CIT(A)”], which in turn arose from the intimation issued under section 143(1) of the Act, for the assessment year 2017-18. 2 2. The revised grounds of appeal filed by the assessee are as follows ... claiming a refund of Rs. 6,24,550/-. The return filed by the assessee was processed vide 3 intimation dated 27.03.2019 issued under section 143(1) of the Act, assessing total income of the assessee at Rs. 1,03,54,780/- after making an addition

Nishit Praful Gogri, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 3, Thane

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

ITA 3632/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhari, Sr. AR

Section 10(38)Section 148Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM

Nishit Praful Gogri, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 3, Thane

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

ITA 3631/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhari, Sr. AR

Section 10(38)Section 148Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM

Income Tax Officer 17(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Ashok Amritlal Nayak, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 3485/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Jagadishassessment Year: 2019-20

Section 143(1)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JAGADISH, ACCOUNTANT

Nayna Mukesh Shah, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 41(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1861/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Ms. Nayna Mukesh Shah, Dcit, Circle 41(2)(1), 14E, Konark Darshan, Kautilya Bhavan, G Block Bkc, Jain Mandir Road, Sarvodaya Nagar, Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Mulund (W), Bandra (East), Mumbai-400080 Mumbai – 400051. Pan: Aoqps4652E (Appellant) (Respondent) :

For Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhari, Sr. AR

Section 147Section 250Section 68Section 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM

School Managing Society Capt. Gurcharan Singh, Kapurthala vs. Income Tax Officer Ward ( Exemptions), Jalandhar

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 563/ASR/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar26 Feb 2026AY 2024-25

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing) I.T.A. Nos. 562 & 563/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2023-24 & 2024-25 School Managing Society Capt. Vs. Dcit, Cpc, Bengaluru/ Gurcharan Singh Kapurthala, Ito (E) Ward, Jalandhar. Punjab. [Pan:-Aadts4577P] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Y.K. Sud, Ca Respondent By Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. Dr

Section 10Section 10(23)(c)Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. UDAYAN DASGUPTA

School Managing Society Capt. Gurcharan Singh, Kaputhala vs. Income Tax Officer Ward ( Exemptions), Jalandhar

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 562/ASR/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar26 Feb 2026AY 2023-24

Section 10Section 10(23)(c)Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. UDAYAN DASGUPTA

M/S Jil Information Technology Limited, New Delhi vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-3, Lucknow

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

ITA 363/LKW/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 Feb 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2021-22 M/S Jil Information Technology Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Limited, 54, Ja Annexe, Basant Lok, Income Tax, Range-3, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110057 Lucknow Pan: Aaacj8827B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. B.P. Yadav, Adv Revenue By: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.02.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Addl/Jcit(A), Panaji, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 19.03.2025, Wherein The Ld. Addl/Jcit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeals Of The Assessee Against The Orders Under Section 143(1) Passed For The A.Y. 2021-22 By The Adit, Cpc, Bengaluru On 13.11.2022. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As The "Ld. Cit(A)"] Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Disposing The Appeal Of The Appellant By Passing An Ex-Parte Order Which Is In Gross Violation Of Natural Justice & Fair Play As The Assessee Was Not Provided Reasonable Opportunity To Have Its Say On The Merit Of The Additions Made By The Ld. Ao. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Not Appreciating That The Addition Of Rs.78,17,622/-And Also The Addition Of Rs.74,913/-Do Not Fall Under The Purview Of The Clauses Enshrined In Section 143(1) Of The I.T. Act, 1961 & Also Failed To Appreciate That The Additions Made In The Present Case Are In The Nature Of Debate

For Appellant: Sh. B.P. Yadav, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl CIT DR

Section 143(1)Section 250

Income Tax Act, 1961 on 19.03.2025, wherein the ld. Addl/JCIT(A) has dismissed the appeals of the assessee against the orders under section 143(1) passed for the A.Y. 2021-22 by the ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru on 13.11.2022. The grounds of appeal are as under:- “1. The Learned Commissioner ... addition of Rs.78,17,622/-and also the addition of Rs.74,913/-do not fall under the purview of the clauses enshrined in section 143(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 and also failed to appreciate that the additions made in the present case are in the nature of debate

Alpa Harshadbhai Gandhi, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2153/AHD/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Feb 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2023-24

For Appellant: Shri D K Parikh, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Veerbadram Vislavath, Sr. D.R

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “SMC” BENCH Before Dr. BRR Kumar, Vice President And Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member

Dr Shivani Bhatt Charitable Foundation, Anand vs. The ITO, Ward-Exmp, Vadodara

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

ITA 1989/AHD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2022-23

For Appellant: Shri Pratik Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr. D.R

Section 11Section 12ASection 154Section 250

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “B” BENCH Before Dr. BRR Kumar, Vice President And Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member

ITO-WD-1(2)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Avs Corporation, Ahmedabad

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 1627/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Ms. Nupur Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR &

Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

assessment year 2017-18 on 6th October 2017 declaring an income of Rs. 55,92,550/-. The said return was processed under section 143(1) of the Act. 3.2. Thereafter, based on information received from the Investigation Wing (IW) consequent to the search initiated on 28th January