← All Phrases

“Section 143(1)(a)”

Section References (mined)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)2,323 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 143(1)(a) is Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji (167 ITR 471), cited in 3,926 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 143(1)(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.

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)(a)

Chikkamudnoor Milk Producers Co-Operative Society Limited, Chikkamudnoor vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Puttur

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 104/BANG/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Krishna Kantila, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate, Standing Counsel
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143Section 154Section 80Section 80ASection 80PSection 80p

wherein the appeal filed by the assessee against the reassessment intimation passed u/s 154 of the Act where in in intimation order under section 143 (1) of the income tax act 1961 dated 27 June 2023 passed by the central processing Centre, assesseee sought rectification for allowance of deduction ... June 2023 wherein the above deduction was also once again denied by holding that that there is an incorrect claim under section 143 (1) (a) (ii) of the act stating that in schedule VI A under part C deduction in Page 3 of 14 respect of certain income in serial

Likhamaram, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 19(1)(5), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 6482/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain& Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 246Section 246ASection 253Section 269SSection 271DSection 275

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER& SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT

Vidyut Transmission Karmachari Vetan Bhogi Credit Cooperative Society, Lucknow vs. CPC Bangalore/ITO-2(1), Lucknow

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 464/LKW/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow19 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

dated 03/04/2025 (DIN & Order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2019-20/1075453457(1) of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“CIT(A)” for short]. 2. In this case, intimation under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the ‘Act’) dated 04.01.2021 was issued to the assessee making adjustments by way of disallowance ... Copy of acknowledgement for filing of ITR is at page 10 of the Paper book. It is prayed that the provisions of section 143(1)(a)(ii) state as under :- "An incorrect claim if such incorrect claim is apparent from any information in the return" It is further prayed that

Rajendra Shripati Jadhav, Satara vs. Income Tax Officer Ward -2, Satara

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

ITA 2000/PUN/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2000/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Prayag Jha and Shri Prateek JhaFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Tripathi
Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL

Patel Sew Joint Venture, Telangana vs. DCIT., Circle-6(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the cross-objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 884/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Dec 2025AY 2019-20
Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 80Section 801A(4)

No.884/Hyd/2025 read as under : “1) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the intimation under section 143(1) of the Act passed by the Ld. AO is bad in law. 2) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO erred ... profit derived from the development of infrastructure project. The return of income filed by the assessee has been processed and an intimation under Section 143(1) of the Act, has been issued on 29.03.2021 and determined total income at Rs. 7,88,79,110/- by disallowing the deduction claimed under

ACIT., Circle-6(1), Hyderabad vs. Patel Sew Jointventure, Hyderabad

In the result, the cross-objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 742/HYD/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Dec 2025AY 2023-24
Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 80Section 801A(4)

No.884/Hyd/2025 read as under : “1) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the intimation under section 143(1) of the Act passed by the Ld. AO is bad in law. 2) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO erred ... profit derived from the development of infrastructure project. The return of income filed by the assessee has been processed and an intimation under Section 143(1) of the Act, has been issued on 29.03.2021 and determined total income at Rs. 7,88,79,110/- by disallowing the deduction claimed under

DCIT (Exemptions), Circle 1(1), Hyderabad vs. National Institute of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj, Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeal filed by the Revenue and cross- objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1211/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 11Section 124(3)Section 139Section 148

observed that filing of Form 10B is not mandatory but directory, when the audit report is available while passing the intimation under section 143(1)(a) and, when the requirement of law are complied with, exemption under section 11 cannot be denied. [Para 8]. In the case of B.R. Hospital

Sri. Shivayogi Muneswara Swamy Vidya, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3 Exemption, Bangalore

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

ITA 602/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2020-21 M/S. Sri Shivayogi Muniswara Vs. Ito, Swamy Vidyapeetha, Ward –3 (Exemption), 1 Maralegavi Mutta, Kanakapura Tq, Bangalore. Kanakapura – 562 117, Karnataka. Pan : Aahts 1565 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Ramaraju, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Subramanian, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 06.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.12.2025

For Appellant: Shri. Ramaraju, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 143(1)(a)

return of income. Extended due date for filing of return of income was 15.02.2021. 3. Aggrieved from the above processing of return under section 143(1)(a) of the Act, assessee filed appeal before learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A) dismissed appeal of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved from

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(1), C.R Building, ITO New Delhi vs. M M Healthcare Ltd., Pushpanjali, East Delhi, Anand Vihar, Delhi

ITA 3522/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2022-23 Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. M. M. Healthcare Ltd., Income Tax, Circle-16(1), Pushpanjali, East Delhi, New Delhi Anand Vihar, New Delhi Pan: Aaacm1799D (Appellant) (Respondent) With C.O. No.238/Del/2025 [Arising Out Of Ita No.3522/Del/2025] Assessment Year: 2022-23 M/S. M. M. Healthcare Ltd., Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Pushpanjali, East Delhi, Tax, Circle-16(1), Anand Vihar, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaacm1799D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Ruchesh Sinha, Adv. Ms. Monalisa Maity, Adv. Department By Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 03.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17.12.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm This Revenue’S Appeal Ita No.3522/Del/2025 Along With The Assessee’S Cross Objection C.O. No.238/Del/2025 For Assessment

Section 143(1)Section 2Section 36Section 36(1)(vii)

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/Addl./JCIT(A)-1, Ahmedabad’s DIN and order no. ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1074913096(1), dated 24.03.2025 involving proceedings under section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Heard both the parties. Case files perused. 2. The Revenue’s sole substantive ... grievance raised in the instant appeal seeks to reverse the Addl./JCIT(A)’s lower appellate discussion quashing the CPC’s section 143(1) processing dated 07.08.2023 itself reading as under: “7. Decision: Appellant has raised 4 grounds of appeal. 7.1. Ground No. 1: This ground no. 1 is relates

Pristine Mega Logistics Park Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT Circle- 19(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 1450/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma& Shri Amitabh Shukla[Assessment Year: 2022-23] M/S Pristine Mega Logistics Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Park Pvt. Ltd., Cpc Bangalore, 3Rd Floor, Commercial Plaza, Vs Circle-19(1), New Delhi Wing B, Radisson Hotel, Mahipalpur, New Delhi-110037 Pan:Aagcp8465R Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Ashok Jain, Ca Revenue By Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 10.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17.12.2025

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 80Section 80I

section 139(1) of the Act. It has also been argued that the impugned adjustment per se is not permissible for adjustment under section 143(1)(a) of the Act. 4. The ld. Counsel for the assessee vehemently argued submitting that the filing of audit report is not mandatory

Pandurang Keshav Pandit, Panvel, Maharashtra vs. The DCIT, Panvel Circle, Panvel, Maharashtra

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

ITA 1996/PUN/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Dec 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2614/Pun/2024 & Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri C.H. NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Tripathi
Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 5Section 69

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “B”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Satara Circle, Satara vs. Kay Bouvet Engineering Limited, Satara

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and both the COs filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1392/PUN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar &For Respondent: S/Shri Amol Khairnar CIT-DR and Manish M. Mehta
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 148

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND Ms. ASTHA

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Satara vs. Kay Bouvet Engineering Limited, Satara

ITA 1374/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kumar &
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 148

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND Ms. ASTHA

Pandurang Keshav Pandit, New Panvel vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Panvel Circle

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

ITA 2614/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2614/Pun/2024 & Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri C.H. NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Tripathi
Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 5Section 69

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “B”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL

Vikas Goyal, Bengaluru vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bengaluru

ITA 501/BANG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 220(2)Section 234ASection 250

CBDT vide its circular No.581 dated 28/09/1990 had reiterate that the scope of the powers to make prima facie adjustments under section 143(1) of the Act is somewhat co-terminus with the power to rectify a mistake apparent from the record under section

The Bombay St. Xaviers, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Exemption Ward 2(4), Mumbai

ITA 3643/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti B. PatelFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 12A(1)(b)Section 143(1)

referred to as ‘the CIT(A)’] whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had dismiss the appeal against the Intimation Order, dated 08/03/2023, passed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’]. 3. When the appeal was taken up for hearing the Learned Authorized ... return of income for Assessment Year 2022-2023 filed on 07/11/2022. The aforesaid return of income was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act and intimation dated 08/03/2023 was issued to the Assessee whereby the total income of the the Assessee was computed at INR.7,95,52,422/-. While

The Bombay St. Xaviers Society, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Exemption Ward 2(4), Mumbai

ITA 1266/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti B. PatelFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 12A(1)(b)Section 143(1)

referred to as ‘the CIT(A)’] whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had dismiss the appeal against the Intimation Order, dated 08/03/2023, passed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’]. 3. When the appeal was taken up for hearing the Learned Authorized ... return of income for Assessment Year 2022-2023 filed on 07/11/2022. The aforesaid return of income was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act and intimation dated 08/03/2023 was issued to the Assessee whereby the total income of the the Assessee was computed at INR.7,95,52,422/-. While

Rolon Seals International, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-11(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 947/HYD/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Dec 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.947/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2023-2024 Rolon Seals International, The Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad – 500 063. Vs. Ward-11(1), Telangana. Hyderabad. Pan Aarfr2216G (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Sri Sashank Dundu, Advocate राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: G Saratha, Sr. Ar

For Appellant: Sri Sashank Dundu, AdvocateFor Respondent: G Saratha, Sr. AR
Section 10ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250

mechanical exercise 9 ITA.No.947/Hyd./2025 and one that can be carried out by the CPC, very much within the scope of section 143(1)(a)(ii) of the Act. Since the return of Income is filed beyond the due date specified u/s.139(1), I do not find any reason

Ntt Data Business Solutios Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-5(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 489/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.489/Hyd/2022 Assessment Year 2018-2019 Ntt Data Business The Dcit, Solutions Private Limited, Hyderabad. Circle-5(1), Vs. Pin -500081. Hyderabad. Pan Aadci1557Q (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca Aliasgar Rampurawala राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Ms U Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: CA Aliasgar RampurawalaFor Respondent: MS U Mini Chandran, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144

circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in considering the income determined under 6 ITA.No.489/Hyd./2022 section 143(1)(a) for computing the total assessed income instead of considering income declared by the Appellant in the return of income and in doing

Dabur India Limited, Delhi vs. ACIT/DCIT, Delhi

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

ITA 3085/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Dabur India Limited, Vs. Acit, Circle 7 (1), 8/3, Asaf Ali Road, Delhi. Delhi – 110 002. (Pan : Aaacd0474C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Chandan Agarwal, Ca Revenue By : Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.09.2025 Date Of Order : 10.12.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Addl./Jcit (A), Kochi [“Ld. Jcit(A)”, For Short] Dated 17.03.2025 For The Assessment Year 2021-22 Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Holding That The Appeal Filed Against Order Passed U/S 143(1) Is Infructuous As The Order Is Merged With The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 144C(3) R.W.S 144B. 2. That The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Is Bad In Law As No Opportunity Of Being Heard Was Granted To The Appellant.

For Appellant: Shri Chandan Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 35Section 35(1)Section 35(1)(iv)Section 80G

income for AY 2021-22 declaring total income of Rs.11,89,38,88,686/-. The total income of the assessee was determined under section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) dated 22.09.2022 by the CPC at Rs.12,05,57,19,770/- and raised ... contained or disallowances made u/s 143(1) of the Act and he merely completed the assessment by considering the total income as per section 143(1) without analyzing the issue. Therefore, the issue raised by the assessee is independent of the regular assessment passed by the AO u/s 143