← 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)

Awaaz Foundation, Mumbai vs. ACIT Trust Circle/CPC, Mumbai

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

ITA 1924/MUM/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1924/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2020-21) Acit, Trust Circle/Cpc, Awaaz Foundation, Mtnl Building, Peddar C/O- Sumaira Abdulali, 3, बिधम/ Road, Mumbai-400 026 Reshma Apartment, 13 Pali Vs. Hill Road, Near Petit School, Bandra (W) Mumbai-400 050 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aabta8994Q (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri N. R. Agarwal, Ld. Ar प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Manoj Sinha, Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 03.10.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 30.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Impugned Order Dated 26.07.2022, Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi In Relation To Intimation U/S 143(1) For Ay 2020-21. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

For Appellant: Shri N. R. Agarwal, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Sinha, Ld. DR
Section 10Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 288

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JM & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM आयकरअपीलसं

M/S. Lupin Investments Pvt. Ltd (As A Sucessor to Novamed Investments Pvt. Ltd), Mumbai vs. Assistant Commisssioner of Income Tax, Circle 14(1) (1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1812/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br, Accountat Member & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S. Lupin Investments Vs. Acit, Circle – 14(1)(1) Pvt Ltd (Successor To Mumbai. Novamed Investments Pvt Ltd.,) 159, Cst Road, Kalina, Santacruz (E), Mumbai – 400098. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacl1070G Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Rajan Vora & Shri Hemen Chandaria.Ar Respondent By : Shri Manoj Sinha.Dr Date Of Hearing 10.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 30.11.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi / Cit(A) Passed U/S 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora &For Respondent: Shri Manoj Sinha.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 234BSection 234CSection 250Section 35ASection 80G

Appeal not adjudicated 5. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC erred in not adjudicating the appeal filed against the intimation under section 143(1). Adjustment in respect of deduction under section 80GGA 6. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC ought to have directed the learned Assessing ... deduction claimed under M/s. Lupin Investments Pvt Ltd., Mumbai. section 80GGA of the ITA is without jurisdiction and beyond the scope of section 143(1)(a) of the ITA. 8. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC erred in not appreciating that the adjustment made under section 143(1

Mittal Park Co-Op Housing Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (A), Delhi

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

ITA 1029/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalmittal Park Co-Opp. Housing Society Ltd. 44, Mittal Park, Janardhan Mhatra Marg, Ruiapark, Juhu-Mumbai-400049. Pan: Aaaam2918E ...... Appellant Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), (National Faceless Appeal Centre), Delhi. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Manoj Mahimkar Respondent By : Sh. Dilip K. Shah, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 01/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29/11/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre (For Short ‘Nfac’), Delhi Dated 06.04.2022 Under Section 254 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’) For A.Y. 2012-13. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Honourable Commissioner Of Income Tax- (Appeal), Nfac, Delhi, [Hon. Cit- (A)] Has Erred On The Fact & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In The Law Declining To Condone The Delay In Filing The Appeal.

For Appellant: Sh. Manoj MahimkarFor Respondent: Sh. Dilip K. Shah, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 249(2)Section 254Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

total income at Rs. Nil after claiming deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. The return of income was processed under section 143(1) of the Act dated 15.03.2014. 3. As per the intimation, CPC, Bangalore made disallowance under section 80P amounting ... section 249(2) the due date for filing of appeal against the intimation under section 143(1) was 13.04.2014. However assessee filed the appeal only on 29.03.2019 after a period of 1810 days of delay. We have gone through the order of Ld. CIT(A) and the submissions of assessee

M/S. IV Sanctum, Bengaluru vs. Additional Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 986/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Nov 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2019-20 M/S. Iv Sanctum, Vs. The Assistant Director Of Income Tax, #18/19, 4Th Cross, 5Th Main, Cpc, Gandhinagar, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 009. Pan : Aawfm 3697 H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel Date Of Hearing : 23.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.11.2022 O R D E R This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Nfac, Delhi, Dated 29.09.2022, Relating To Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. The Only Issue That Arises For Consideration In This Appeal Is As To Whether The Revenue Authorities Were Justified In Making A Disallowance On Delayed Payment Of Employee’S Contribution To Esi & Pf Of Rs.4,94,192/- Made By The Assessee Beyond The Due Date By Invoking The Provisions Of Section 36(1)(Va) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). 3. On The Above Issue, It Is Not Disputed That As Per The Decision Of The Hon’Ble Supreme Court Rendered In The Case Of Checkmate Services Pvt Ltd Vs Cit-1 In Civil Appeal 2833/2016 Vide Its Judgment Dated 12 October 2022 Decided The Issue On Allowability/Treatment Of ‘Delayed’ Employee Pf Contribution Payment In Hands Of Assessee Under Provisions Page 2 Of 4

For Appellant: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

whether it was within the powers of the Revenue authorities to make the disallowance while electronically processing the return of income under section 143(1)(a) of the Act. Learned Counsel for the assessee firstly pointed out that as per the proviso to section 143(1 ... made only after due intimation to the assessee. Learned Counsel for the assessee brought to our notice that in the intimation under section 143(1) of the Act, dated 1.5.2020, it has been mentioned that there was a communication sent by email to the assessee before making the impugned disallowance