← All Phrases

“Section 143(5)(a)”

Section References (mined)Section 143Section 143(5)(a)1 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 143(5)(a) is Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji (167 ITR 471), cited in 3,926 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 143(5)(a)

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.

Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT
284 ITR 323 · 2006 · Supreme Court
1,842
citing judgments

An assessee cannot raise a new claim or a claim not made in the original or revised return of income for the first time directly before the Assessing Officer during assessment proceedings.

CIT v. Woodward Governor India Pvt. Ltd.
312 ITR 254 · 2009 · Supreme Court
968
citing judgments

Foreign exchange fluctuations, whether gains or losses, are inextricably linked to the underlying business transaction and must be accounted for under the mercantile system. The Supreme Court also affirmed the standard accounting principle of valuing stock at cost or net realisable value, whichever is lower.

279 ITR 331/149 Taxman 15 (Guj.); 5. CIT v. Sabari Enterprises
298 ITR 141 · 2008 · High Court
706
citing judgments

Employee contributions to provident fund or ESI, even if deposited after the due date specified in the respective welfare statutes, are allowable as a deduction under Section 36(1)(va) if paid before the due date for filing the income-tax return. This judgment aligns the treatment of employee contributions with employer contributions under Section 43B.

Commissioner of Income Tax v. Nova Promoters and Finlease (P) Ltd.
342 ITR 169 · 2012 · High Court
658
citing judgments

To make an addition under Section 68 for unexplained cash credits, the Assessing Officer must conduct proper inquiry into the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the creditor, especially concerning share application money. The assessee's initial discharge of burden by providing necessary details shifts the onus back to the AO for further investigation, including the source of source.

Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT
384 ITR 490 · 2016 · High Court
631
citing judgments

Co-operative banks are not fundamentally different from co-operative societies, entitling them to claim deductions under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961, including for interest income treated as business income.

Ishikawajima Harima Heavy Industries Ltd. v. DIT
288 ITR 408 · 2007 · Supreme Court
394
citing judgments

Income from offshore supply of goods and services is not taxable in India if the entire transaction, including transfer of ownership and payments, occurs outside India.

Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy
7 SCC 123 · 1998 · Supreme Court
368
citing judgments

The Supreme Court outlines the principles for condoning delay in filing appeals, stating that a litigant's lapse is not always a bar if the explanation is bona fide and not a dilatory strategy. Courts should show utmost consideration to suitors and prioritize substantial justice unless the delay is deliberately to gain time.

Judgments citing Section 143(5)(a)

Anidhi Impex P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 4(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3998/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Aug 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhanidhi Impex Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dy. Comm. Of It-4(1) C/O Asj & Company Llp, Room No. 638, Aaykar 201, Rajshila, 597, Jss Bhavan, Churchgate, Road, Near Marine Lines, Mumbai – 400020 Mumbai – 400 002 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaeca7748J Appellant .. Respondent [ Appellant By : Amit Porwal Respondent By : Manoj Kumar Sinha Date Of Hearing 18.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 14.08.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Filed By The Assesse Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-8, Mumbai, Dated 21.03.2013 For A.Y. 2009- 10. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Concise Ground Of Appeal Vide Letter Dated 26.03.2019: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law Cit (A) Erred In Confirming The Action Of A.O. Of Treating The Loss Of Rs.1,84,26,264/- Incurred On Mcx Transactions As Speculative Loss U/S 43 (5) Of The Income Tax Act. 1961. 2. The Cit (A) Erred In Not Adjudicating The Ground Relating To Disallowance Of Expenses Rs. 7,851/; & Rs.1,62,819/- Incurred On Security Transaction Tax & Other Charges Of Mcx Respectively, Considered By The A.O. As Speculative. 3. Cit (A) Erred In Not Adjudicating The Ground Relating To The Disallowance Of Expenses Of Rs. 10,00,000/- By The A.O. On Estimation & Ad Hoc Basis Stating As Related To The Mcx Transactions & Hence Speculative In Nature, Without Even Confronting The Appellant Of This Proposed Action By Issuing Show Cause.

For Appellant: Amit PorwalFor Respondent: Manoj Kumar Sinha
Section 143(2)Section 43Section 43(5)Section 73

P a g e | 1 Anidhi Impex Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT-4(1) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A