“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)

M/S. Deutschland Transformers Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

The appeal stand allowed

ITA 775/CHNY/2020[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjunraj (CA) for Shri S. SridharFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal (JCIT) - Ld. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C/SMC” BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल ,लेखा सद) के सम*। HON’BLE

DCIT 2(3) (1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Nisa Induatrial Services Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 1475/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Sept 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1475/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S Nisa Industrial Dcit-2(3)(1) Services Pvt. Ltd. R. No. 552, Aayakar Bhavan, बिधम/ 509, Magnum Tower, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Lokhandwala Complex, Vs. Cross Road No. 2, Andheri West, Mumbai- 400 058 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaacn1283H (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Dr. Mahesh Akhade, Ld. Dr प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : None सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 08.09.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 08.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Impugned Order Dated 31.03.2022, Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, In Relation To Adjustment Made U/S 143(1) For The Ay 2019-20. 2

For Appellant: Dr. Mahesh AkhadeFor Respondent: None

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 80

careful look at the related statutory provisions, that there is a material difference in the scheme of processing the income tax return under section 143(1)(a) as it stands now vis-à-vis as it stood at the point of time when Khatau Junkar judgment (supra ... only when such a deduction was “on the basis of information available in such return, accounts or documents is prima facie inadmissible” [see Section 143(1)(a)(iii) as it then stood] and it was in this context that the connotations of the expression “prima facie inadmissible” came

Grama Vidyodaya Sangha (Regd), Mysuru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 345/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri K. Kotresh, A.RFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayana, D.R

Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(2)Section 143(1)Section 234A

payable, TDS of Rs 2,21,230 was claimed as refund. 2.2 The Deputy Commissioner, Centralized Processing Center, Bengaluru - sent an Intimation under section 143(1) of the Act for the relevant assessment year dated 26.06.2019. In the said Intimation, assessee's claim of entire income as exempt ... Projects/institutions run by you is more than R.1 crore.” 4.1. The above adjustment has been done by CPC under the provisions of section 143(1) of the Act. For better understanding, we proceed to go through the above provisions, which reads as follows:- “143(1) Where a return has been

Lajwanti Manchanda Trust, Mumbai vs. ITO 24 (2) (5), Mumbai

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

ITA 1482/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Sh. Dhaval ShahFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita Kaushik

Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN

Gmr Energy Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Director Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 526/BANG/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Sept 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Jagdish K. Jogi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

important to look into the scope of adjustment which can be carried out by the AO while processing a return of income under Section 143(1) of the Act. The same is limited by the provisions of Section 143(1)(a) of the Act. The same refers to arithmetical errors ... income. 5.1 For the purpose of answering the question that whether such recourse was available with the assessee, we have to refer to section 143(1) of the Act as applicable to relevant assessment year. “143(1) Where a return has been made under section 139, or in response

Gmr Energy Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 513/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Sept 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Jagdish K. Jogi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

Kya Apparel LLP, Mumbai vs. Dy. Comm of Income Tax, CPC, Bengluru

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

ITA 1732/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalekya Apparel Llp Vs. Dcit, Cpc H. No. 434/6, Gala 6 To P.O.Box.1,Electronic 11, Bldg-A-7, Harihar City, Corporation, Dapode Bangalore.560100. Road, Mumbai – 421302 Pan/Gir No. : Aamfk3840Q Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ms.Pooja Harjajani.Ar Respondent By : Mr.R.P. Veena.Dr Date Of Hearing 24.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 25.08.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Passed U/S 143(1) & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal.

For Appellant: Ms.Pooja Harjajani.ARFor Respondent: Mr.R.P. Veena.DR

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

report but not taking into account in the computation of total income in the return” as is sine qua non for disallowance of Section 143(1)(a)(iv). When the due date under Explanation to Section 36(1)(va) is judicially held to be not decisive for determining the disallowance ... detailed discussions above, we are of the considered view that the impugned adjustment in the course of processing of return under section 143(1) is vitiated in law, and we delete the same. As we hold so, we make it clear that our observations remain confined to the peculiar facts

Jasbir Singh Kaberwal, Mumbai vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengluru

In the result, this appeal is allowed

ITA 1788/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2022AY 2019-20

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 44A

total of such, as perceived by the tax auditor, delayed payments, aggregating to Rs 4,24,634 ,were sought to be disallowed under section 143(1). When the assessee was put to notice, by the Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as „the Assessing Officer ... respect of the proposed adjustment under section 143(1) for this disallowance, the assessee objected to the adjustment so proposed. As evident from the uncontroverted facts set out in the Statement of Facts before the learned CIT(A), it was categorically pointed out by the assessee, through an online communication

Jasbir Singh Kaberwal, Mumbai vs. ADIT CPC, Bengluru

In the result, this appeal is allowed

ITA 1787/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2022AY 2019-20

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 2(24)Section 36(1)(va)Section 44A

auditor, delayed payments, Assessment Year: 2018-19 Page 3 of 11 aggregating to Rs 4,24,634 ,were sought to be disallowed under section 143(1). When the assessee was put to notice, by the Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as „the Assessing Officer ... respect of the proposed adjustment under section 143(1) for this disallowance, the assessee objected to the adjustment so proposed. As evident from the uncontroverted facts set out in the Statement of Facts before the learned CIT(A), it was categorically pointed out by the assessee, through an online communication

Alert Care & Construction Services Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. The Assessing Officer, WD9(1) (2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed in above terms

ITA 1601/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)

Supreme Court is effective, since its inception; therefore, issue is no longer debatable. In terms of section 143(1) (a) (ii) of the Act, any incorrect claim which is apparent from any information the return of income, is liable to be adjusted u/s 143(1) of the Act. Since

Duck Creek Technologies India LLP, Mumbai vs. ACIT- Circle 26 (1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1898/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 234CSection 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 44A

dated 19th August, 2021, upholding the adjustments made by the Assessing Officer (CPC) in the course of processing of income tax return under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2018-19. 2. Grievances raised by the appellant are as follows: “General Ground 1 ... 1) of the Act under section 43B of the Act amounting to INR 68,05,543 without even any mentioning the clause of section 143(1) wherein the disallowance is alleged to fall while the Appellant contends that the disallowance is outside the scope of that section. 3. The Learned

Muppidathy Sivan Thevar, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1639/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing Of Income Tax Returns U/S.139(1) Of The Act, Could Be Subject Matter Of Adjustment U/S.143(1)(A) Of The Act By The Central Processing Centre (Cpc).

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 44A

learned CIT(A) was not justified in upholding the adjustment, made by the Centralized Processing Centre Bengaluru while processing income tax returns under section 143(1) based on certain inputs from the tax audit reports of the assessee in question, in respect of the disallowance ... total of such, as perceived by the tax auditor, delayed payments, aggregating to Rs 4,24,634 , were sought to be disallowed under section 143(1). When the assessee was put to notice, by the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as 'the Assessing Officer

Muppidathy Sivan Thevar, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1638/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing Of Income Tax Returns U/S.139(1) Of The Act, Could Be Subject Matter Of Adjustment U/S.143(1)(A) Of The Act By The Central Processing Centre (Cpc).

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 44A

Ujjivan Small Finance Bank Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 578/BANG/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Aug 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.S.Ananthan, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Bijoy Kumar Panda, CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 234ASection 234FSection 80J

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “C”, BANGALORE Before Shri George George K, JM & Ms.Padmavathy S, AM ITA

Radhakrishna Devanna Nayak, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre, Mumbai

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

ITA 1613/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai18 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleradhakrishna Devanna Vs. Nfac, New Delhi Nayak, 249, Matrupriti, Hingwala Lane, Ghatkopar (E), Mumbai-400077. Pan/Gir No. : Aaapn4093Q Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri R.P. Veena.Dr Date Of Hearing 23.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 25.08.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Cit(A)- National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Veena.DR

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43Section 44A

Kantilal Jain, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 579/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri B.R. Sudheendra, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel

Section 143(1)Section 194DSection 234BSection 234CSection 250

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Centralized Processing Centre. Bangalore (hereinafter referred as "DCIT, CPC" for brevity), has erred in passing the intimation under section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in the manner passed by him and the learned Commissioner of Income ... acceptable for the reason that the income on the basis of which the difference has been arrived at in accordance with section 143(1)(a)(vi) of the IT Act is reflected in your Form 26AS. The head under which the difference has arisen due to non-reporting of income

Amasebail Vyvasaya Seva Sahakari Sangha Limited, Udupi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 537/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh R. Uppin, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel

Section 119Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 148Section 80ASection 80A(5)Section 80P

Madras High Court in W.P. No.7038 of 2020 dated 7.4.2021, wherein held as under:- "7. The scope of an 'intimation' under Section 143 (1) (a) of the Act, extends to the making of adjustments based upon errors apparent from the return of income and patent from the record. Thus ... Page 4 of 5 of the provision and due weight age as well as meaning has to be attributed to the purposes of Section 143(1)(a) of the Act. 8. The provisions of Section 80AC(ii) make it clear that any deduction that is claimed under Part

M/S. Shri Mahishasuramardini Urban Co-Operative Credit Society Limited, Haveri vs. Income Tax Officer, Wrd-1, Haveri

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

ITA 566/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Sri.Vishal S Rao, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Ganesh R.Ghale, Standing Counsel

Section 234ASection 234BSection 69ASection 80P(2)(a)

drew our attention to the findings of the Hon’ble Madras High Court:- “7. The scope of an 'intimation' under Section 143 (1) (a) of the Act, extends to the making of adjustments based upon errors apparent from the return of income and patent from the record. Thus ... main thrust or scope of the provision and due weight age as well as meaning has to be attributed to the purposes of Section 143(1)(a) of the Act. 8. The provisions of Section 80AC(ii) make it clear that any 15 ITA No.566/Bang/2022. Sri Mahishasuramanrdini Urban

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-6(2)(1), Bangalore vs. Sri C Gangadhara Murthy, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2400/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuthe Dy. Commissioner Of Vs Shri C. Gangadhara Murthy Income-Tax, No. 322, 3Rd A Corss, 2Nd Block Circle - 6(2)(1) 3Rd Stage, Basaveshwaranagar Bangalore . Bangalore 560079. Pan – Agipg 2668 N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 2

assessment and further notices were also issued to the assessee. The return filed by the assessee on 11.02.2014 was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act. After filing return by the assessee in pursuance of notice issued under Section 148 of the Act the AO issued notice under Section ... Accordingly the AO treated the return as incorrect return in the eyes of law. Subsequently the assessee filed return which was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act after recording reasons within the framework of the provisions of law, the AO 7 issued notice under Section

Hamilton Industries Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO -WD 7(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 218/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S Hamilton Industries Pvt. Ltd. Unit No. 8 & 9, Ground Floor, Kakad, Chamber, 132, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai-400018. Pan: Aaach0375E ...... Appellant Vs. Ito, Ward 7(1)(1), Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400020. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Piyush Chhajed, C.A Respondent By : Sh. Prasoon Kabra Date Of Hearing : 18/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 10/08/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M:

For Appellant: Sh. Piyush Chhajed, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Prasoon Kabra

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 208Section 234CSection 250Section 44A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “H”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN