“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)

Jain Textile Industries, Gurgaon vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-1(1), Gurgaon

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is dismissed as devoid of

ITA 932/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Jain Textile Industries, V Assistant Commissioner Of 38, Milestone, Behrampur S Income Tax, Circle-1(1) Road, Village Khandsa, Hsiiddc Building, 4Th Floor, Gurgaon, Haryana Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon Pan: Aabfj8405F Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Bhupender Jit Kumar, Adv, Sh. Nikhil Sharma, Adv & Sh. Tushar Kalra, Adv Revenue By Sh. Dheeraj Kumar Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 03/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24/10/2025

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 251(1)(a)

Assessment Year ('A.Y.') 2014- 15 after adjustment of brought forward losses was efled by the Appellant on 29.09.2014. The return was processed under section 143(1) of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (the 'Act') on 08.07.2015. Thereafter, the case was selected for scrutiny and the assessment was completed under section

Indiabulls Securities Limited (Earlier Known As Dhani Stocks Limited), Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-7(1), Delhi

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 718/DEL/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Indiabulls Securities Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner Of (Earlier Known As Dhani Income Tax, Circle 7 (1), Stocks Limited) 1/1E, First Delhi Floor, East Patel Nagar, Delhi Pan: Aabc12081F Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Tapas Mishra, Adv Revenue By Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24/10/2025 Order

Section 143(1)Section 37Section 37(1)

1 Indiabulls Securities Ltd. Vs. DCIT IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI (DELHI BENCH ‘C’ NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI

Maharishi Education Corporation Private Limited, Delhi vs. ITO Ward- 16(1), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2639/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.2639/िद"ी/2025 (िन.व. 2021-22) Maharishi Education Corporation P. Ltd., Dgl-121, First Floor, Dlf The Galleria, Mayur Vihar, ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Phase-1, Delhi 110091 Pan: Aaccm-5225-G बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-16(1), ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Cr Building, Delhi अपीलाथ" "ारा/Appellant By : Shri Deepak Jain, Chartered Accountant "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By : Ms. Sudha Gupta, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 29/07/2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 24/10/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Additional/Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Nashik [In Short ‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 07.03.2025, For Assessment Year 2021-22. 2. The Solitary Issue Raised By The Assessee In Appeal Is Rate Of Tax Applied By The Assessing Officer (Ao) U/S. 115Baa Of The Income Tax Act,1961(Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’). As Per The Assessee, The Rate Of Tax Applicable Is 20% As Prescribed U/S. 112 Of The Act, Whereas, The Ao Has Held That The Tax On Long Term Capital Gain As Per Section 115Baa Of The Act Is @22%. 3. The Assessee Is A Domestic Company. The Assessee Exercised An Option U/S. 115Baa Of The Act By Filing Form 10Ic For Financial Year 2019-20 & Subsequent

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Jain, Chartered AccountantFor Respondent: Ms. Sudha Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 112Section 115BSection 143(1)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण िद"ी पीठ “एस एम सी”, िद"ी "ी िवकास अव"थी, "ाियक सद" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 3, Delhi vs. Ved Prakash Chanana, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2018-19 is allowed

ITA 4993/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Nirbhay Mehta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT DR

Section 127(1)Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 69A

case are, assessee filed its return of income on 31.08.2018 declaring total income of Rs.39,98,590/- which was processed under section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’). A search and seizure proceedings u/s 132 of the Act was conducted in the case

Ved Prakash Chanana, Delhi vs. ACIT CC- 3, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2018-19 is allowed

ITA 4644/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Nirbhay Mehta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT DR

Section 127(1)Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 69A

Ved Prakash Chanana, Delhi vs. ACIT CC 03, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2018-19 is allowed

ITA 4643/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Nirbhay Mehta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT DR

Section 127(1)Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 69A

Anuj Choudhary, Bhopal vs. It0, 1(1), Bhopal

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

ITA 204/IND/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Paresh M Joshianuj Choudhary, Income Tax Officer 1(1), Mig 184, Bhopal Geetanjali Complex, Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aqepc6217D Assessee By Shri Balaji.V, Ar Revenue By Ms. Ila Parmar, Cit-Dr With Shri Nihar Sahu Date Of Hearing 22.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23.10.2025 O R D E R

Section 143(1)Section 192Section 90

आयकरअपील"यअ"धकरण, इंदौर"यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT

Kamakshi Jute Industries Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 69/KOL/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Oct 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

1 is related to the issue involved being debatable on facts and in law and the addition made in the intimation issued under section 143(1) of the Act being unlawful and arbitrary. In this respect, the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the assessee’s own case

Hcg Tvh Medical Imaging Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward-2(3), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2239/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2238 & 2239/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14 Hcg Tvh Medical Imaging The Income Tax Officer, Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Corporate Ward 2(3), No.150, P. Kalinga Road, Chennai Purasawakkam, Chennai – 600 084 Pan: Aacch 1276L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri P.M. Kathir, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23.10.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.10.2025

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT

Section 119(2)(b)Section 143(1)Section 250

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

Hcg Tvh Medical Imaging Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward-2(3), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2238/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT

Section 119(2)(b)Section 143(1)Section 250

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

Yuvak Pratishthan, Mumbai vs. ITO Exem Ward 2(4), Mumbai

ITA 3347/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Oct 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Ms. Kinjal Bhuta- Advocate

Section 11Section 11(3)Section 115BSection 12ASection 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250

Form No. 10BB in other cases. 3. The return of the assessee was processed and the an adjustment notices was issued under section 143(1)(a)(ii) stating that since the total income of the assessee exceed to Rs. 5 crore the Audit Report should have been filed in Form ... regard to the mismatch and the assessee responded on 03.12.2024 stating that the figure was mentioned mistakenly. The CPC however issued intimation under section 143(1) on 20.12.2024 making an addition of Rs. 57,21,300/- over and above the income declared by the assessee under section 115BBI

Swargiya Prof Nawal Pd. Singh S Sansthan, Vaishali vs. CPC, Bengaluru

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 348/PAT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna21 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.348/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Swargiya Prof Nawal Pd. Singh S Sansthan…………………..………. …………………....Appellant 0 Sahi Colony, Hajipur, Vaishali, Bihar- 844101.. [Pan: Aagts5236E] Vs. Cpc, Bengaluru……..…....…..……………..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Rakesh Kumar, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 16, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 21, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Is Directed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 03.01.2025 Passed By The Cit, Appeal Addl/Jcit(A)-3, Chennai Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2018–19. The Case Was Processed By The Cpc, Which Issued An Intimation Under Section 143(1) Of The Act, Disallowing The Assessee’S Claim Of Exemption Of ₹1,25,99,176, Being 80% Of The Total Expenditure Against Total Receipts Of ₹1,27,78,294. Consequently, The Total Income Was Determined At ₹₹1,27,78,294. I.T.A. No.348/Pat/2025 Swargiya Prof Nawal Pd. Singh S Sansthan 3. Aggrieved By The Above Intimation, The Assessee Preferred An Appeal Before The Cit(A). However, The Cit(A) Dismissed The Appeal Solely On The Ground That It Was Filed After A Delay Of 1,489 Days, Without Considering The Matter On Merits.

Section 143(1)Section 250

filed its return of income for the assessment year 2018–19. The case was processed by the CPC, which issued an intimation under section 143(1) of the Act, disallowing the assessee’s claim of exemption of ₹1,25,99,176, being 80% of the total expenditure against total receipts

Madhya Shikarpur Charalkhali Skus Ltd., Nadia vs. I.T.O., Ward-41(3), Nadia

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 88/KOL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 119Section 119(2)(b)Section 143(1)Section 250

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (NFAC), Delhi for relating uphold assessment order under section 143(1) for the Assessment year 2018-19 in respect of order under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The said Orders ... That the Appellant himself could not take decision for filling appeal before your Lordship for justice in connection of uphold assessment order under section 143(1) for the Assessment year 2018-19 in respect of order section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in due Course i.e. within time

Sri Sri Laxmi Sri Sri Narayan and Sri Sri Kali Trust, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 22(2), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 733/KOL/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Oct 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(1)Section 160Section 164Section 164(1)Section 2Section 250Section 3

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

Dipak Kumar Hazra, Howrah vs. ITO, Ward 47(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 1135/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Oct 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 43B

Bombay High Court, reported in 156 ITR 55 in support of the claim that debatable issue could not have been disallowed under section 143(1)(a) of the Act. 6. We have heard the submissions made. Similar issue came up before the Bench in the case of DCIT vs. Seven

Balachandra Builders Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Corp. Circle-1(2), Chennai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 989/CHNY/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 989/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2010-11 V. Balchandra Builders Private Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of No.10 Venkataratnam Nagar, Adyar, Income Tax, Chennai- 600 020. Corporate Circle 1(2), Chennai. [Pan: Aaacb6727A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By Mr.N.Arjun Raj, Advocate, : ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By Ms.R.Anitha, Addl.Cit : सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 28.07.2025 : घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement 21.10.2025

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80I

Orient Craft Ltd. [2013] 29 taxmann.com 392/215 Taxman 28/354 ITR 536 (Delhi) has held that reopening of assessment made under Section 143(1) of the Act is without jurisdiction, in the absence of any tangible material available with the Assessing Officer to form the requisite belief regarding escapement of income ... belief that there was escapement of income, on going through the return of income filed by assessee after it was accepted under Section 143(1) of the Act, without scrutiny and nothing more. Therefore, this is nothing but a review of the earlier proceedings. There is no whisper

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Ethirajulu Vajravel Kumaran, Tiruvannamalai

In the result, all the six appeals of the Revenue are

ITA 1655/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri Shiva Srinivas, CITFor Respondent: Shri R. Venkata Raman, CA

Section 1Section 132Section 139(1)Section 14Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

among them is that the income assessed is greater than the income tax return processed under clause (a) of sub section (1) of section 143(1) of the Act. In simple term, the clause deals with the situation that result in addition in assessments. 6.5.3 The question of misreporting will ... papers and Assessing Officer completed assessment by accepting said LTCG, since income assessed was not greater than income determined in return processed under section 143(1)(a),there was no case of under reporting of income as per provisions of section 270A(2)and (3) and, thus, penalty under section