“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)

Tara Vati, Gurgaon, Haryana vs. Circle 3(1) Gurgaon, Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6552/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2020-21

Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

declaring income of Rs. 6,35,470/-. His return was processed 2 | P a g e under section 143(1)(a) on 28.06.2019. His case was selected for complete scrutiny assessment under the e- assessment Scheme, 2019 on two issues, namely refund claim and winning from Lottery/crossword puzzle/horse races ... income from other sources and claimed deduction for 50% as per section 57(iv) of the 1961 Act. The return was processed under section 143(1) of the Act. An application under section 264 was made claiming that by mistake the assessee treated the interest income as income from other

Satgramr. Colliery Employees Cooperative Credit Society Limited, Asansol vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Asansol

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1920/KOL/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Nov 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.1920/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Satgram R Collery Employees Cooperative Credit Society Ltd……....Appellant Satgram Project, P.O Debichand Nagar, Block-Jamuria-1, Asansol, W.B. 713332. [Pan: Aajas8427K] Vs. Acit, Circle-1, Asansol……..……………....…..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Abhijit Banerjee, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S. B. Chakraborty, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 24, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 25, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 03.02.2025 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”). 2. At The Time Of Hearing Of The Matter, The Learned Representative Submitted That There Was A Delay Of 115 Days In Filing The Appeal. In This Connection, The Assessee Filed An Affidavit Explaining The Reasons For The Delay. After Considering The Submissions Of The Assessee & Examining The Contents Of The Affidavit, We Are Satisfied That The Reasons For The Delay Are Bona Fide & Deserve To Be Condoned.

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 80P

income for A.Y. 2019–20 on 18.06.2022, declaring total income of ₹40,07,277. The Centralized Processing Centre (CPC) processed the return under section 143(1) of the Act and disallowed deduction under section 80P of the Act amounting to ₹40,07,277 on the ground that the assessee ... sustained the disallowance. 5. The assessee is now in further appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee contends that the intimation under section 143(1) dated 29.09.2020 was passed before the amendment to section 143(1)(a)(v) of the Act came into effect on 01.04.2021. Prior

Pujya Sindhi Panchayat Trust, Mumbai vs. ITO (Exemption), Mumbai

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

ITA 678/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Pujya Sindhi Panchayat Vs. Ito(E), Thane Trust Ashet It Park, Road No. Vishrali Naka, Near Kanak 162, Wagle Industrial Automobile Panvel, Raigad, Estate, Thane West, Panvel- 410206. Mumbai- 400604 Pan/Gir No. Aabtp4266E (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 143(1)(a)Section 250

been made without sending a prior communication to the assessee as required by the first proviso and second proviso to section 143(1)(a) of the Act. At the outset, I noticed that the above ground is legal 4. in nature and goes to the roots of the case, therefore

Pujya Sindhi Panchayat Trust, Mumbai vs. ITO (Exemption), Thane

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

ITA 677/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Section 143(1)(a)Section 250

St. Francis Xavier Church, Panvel vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemption), Thane

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

ITA 5883/MUM/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavassessment Year : 2024-25 St. Francis Xavier Church Trust, Income Tax Officer, Plot 379/B, Behind Orion Mall Exemption Ward, Thane & S.T. Depot, Vs. Quershi Mansion, Panvel-410206. Gokhale Road, Pan : Aaets4913N Naupada, Thane-400602. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : None For Revenue : Smt. B. Brahma Vidya Date Of Hearing : 25-11-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 25-11-2025 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Addl/Jcit(A)-Agra, Dated 29-07-2025, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2024-25, Wherein The Assessee Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1.1. On The Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)] Erred In Confirming The Denial Of Exemption/Deductions Under Section 11 Of The Act Resorted To By The Centralized Processing Centre [Cpc), Income Tax Department, Bengaluru (The Learned Assessing Officer) While Processing The Return Of Income Under Section 143(1) Of The Act On The Grounds That The Audit Report In Form 10-Bb Was Filed Belatedly, Though With The Return Of Income Which Was Filed Within The Extended Time Limit Under Section 139(1) Of The Act.

For Appellant: NONEFor Respondent: Smt. B. Brahma Vidya

Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 11(6)Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

resorted to by the Centralized Processing Centre [CPC), Income Tax Department, Bengaluru (the learned Assessing Officer) while processing the Return of Income under Section 143(1) of the Act on the grounds that the Audit Report in Form 10-BB was filed belatedly, though with the Return of Income which ... Section 11 of the Act particularly when the said Audit Report was available on record when the Return of Income was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act. 1.3. The learned CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate the explanations/submissions furnished by the Appellant and the legal position emerging from

Charanjeet Singh, Panipat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Panipat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6387/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2018-19 Sh. Charanjeet Singh, Vs. Income Tax Officer, H. No. 115, Baholi, Ward-1, Panipat Refinery, Panipat Panipat, Haryana Pan: Ddaps7473H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Suresh Gupta, Ca Department By Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr

Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

individual. He filed his return for AY 2018-19 on 29.08.2018 declaring income of Rs. 6,35,470/-. His return was processed under section 143(1)(a) on 28.06.2019. His case was selected for complete scrutiny assessment under the e- assessment Scheme, 2019 on two issues, namely refund claim ... income from other sources and claimed deduction for 50% as per section 57(iv) of the 1961 Act. The return was processed under section 143(1) of the Act. An application under section 9 | P a g e 264 was made claiming that by mistake the assessee treated the interest

Chairman Florida Estate B Co Op Housing Society Limited, Pune vs. DCIT, Cir-7, Pune

In the result, appeal of the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 1986/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Subas P. Bora, CAFor Respondent: Shri Milind Debaje, JCIT –DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 250Section 80P

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “SMC” BENCH : PUNE BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL

Chairman Florida Estate B Co Op Housing Society Limited, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-Circle 7, Pune

In the result, appeal of the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 1704/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Subas P. Bora, CAFor Respondent: Shri Milind Debaje, JCIT –DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 250Section 80P

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “SMC” BENCH : PUNE BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL

Capgemini Technology Services India Limited ( Successor of Aricent Technologies Holdings Limited), Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1260/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Shri Vyomesh PathakFor Respondent: Shri Vidya Ratna Kishore

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 155(18)Section 270ASection 270A(2)Section 270A(6)(a)Section 270A(7)Section 270A(8)Section 270A(9)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “ए” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA

Birlasoft Limited, Pune vs. DCIT, Circle 8, Pune

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

ITA 1116/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19 Birlasoft Limited Dcit, Circle – 8, Pune 35 & 36, Rajiv Gandhi Infotech Vs. Park, Phase-1, Midc, Hinjawadi, Pune – 411057 Pan: Aaack7308N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kishor B Phadke Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 30-09-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24-11-2025 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, V.P: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 23.08.2023 Of The Ld. Cit(A) / Nfac, Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assesse Is A Public Limited Company & Is Engaged In The Business Of Computer & Software Services. It Filed Its Return Of Income On 29.11.2018 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.95,13,15,400/-. The Return Was Processed By The Cpc & An Intimation U/S 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Was Passed On 25.01.2021 Determining The Total Income At Rs.1,00,23,03,750/-. The Case Was Selected For Complete Scrutiny Assessment Under The E-Assessment Scheme, 2019 On The Following Issues:

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR

Section 10ASection 10A(3)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 27Section 36(1)(va)Section 51Section 80ISection 90

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

Shivaani Shannaiah Niranjan, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(8), Bengaluru

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

ITA 1066/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri T.S. Rajan, CA

Section 2Section 35Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘SMC’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL

Parag Kiran Gujrathi, Pune vs. DCIT, Cir-12, Pune

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

ITA 2335/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P. Bora, CAFor Respondent: Shri Milind Debaje, JCIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 90

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “SMC” BENCH : PUNE BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL

Reliance Commercial Dealers Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 8(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 3800/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt. Renu Jauhri ()

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 244A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SMT. RENU JAUHRI (ACCOUNTANT

Amway India Enterprises Private Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle 1(1), Delhi / NFAC, Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5912/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Sudhir Pareek & Shri Manish Agarwalamway India Enterprises Private Dcit, Limited, Circle-1(1), Ground Floor, Elegance Tower, Vs. Delhi/Nfac. Plot No.8, Non Hierarchical Commercial, Jasola, Delhi-110025. Pan-Aaaca5603Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80GSection 92C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘I’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH

Kranthi Educational Society, Bhadrachallam vs. DCIT., Exemption Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our observations given hereinabove

ITA 820/HYD/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Nov 2025AY 2022-2023

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A).

Section 11Section 11oSection 12ASection 12A(1)(b)Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

gross receipts of Rs.10,72,55,472/-. The return was processed by the A.O./CPC, Bengaluru, and an intimation under Section 143(1) of the Act, dated 29.12.2023 was issued, wherein the A.O./CPC denied exemption under Section 11of the Act, on the ground that, the audit report in Form ... Rs.10,72,66,472/- as taxable income and raised a demand of Rs.7,46,74,360/-. 3. Aggrieved with such intimation issued under Section 143(1) of the Act, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). 4. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee submitted that

Muniswamy Reddy Venkatesha, Bengaluru vs. DCIT, Circle-4(3)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 178/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri.Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri.Soundararajan K

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri.Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 143(1)Section 234BSection 250Section 36(1)(va)

entirety. 8. The Ld.CIT(A)/AO has erred in law and on facts in making the above addition against the scope of section 143(1) of the Act. 9. The learned CIT(A) and AO has erred in law and on facts in levying interest u/s 234B/C. (Tax effect ... entirety. 8. The Ld.CIT(A)/AO has erred in law and on facts in making the above addition against the scope of section 143(1) of the Act. 9. The learned CIT(A) and AO has erred in law and on facts in levying interest u/s 234B/C. (Tax effect Rs.34

Muniswamy Reddy Venkatesha, Bengaluru vs. DCIT, Circle- 4(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 177/BANG/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri.Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri.Soundararajan K

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri.Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 143(1)Section 234BSection 250Section 36(1)(va)

Muniswamy Reddy Venkatesha, Bengaluru vs. DCIT, Circle-4(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 176/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri.Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri.Soundararajan K

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri.Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 143(1)Section 234BSection 250Section 36(1)(va)

Nagahat Tea Estate Private Limited, Kolkata vs. Income Tax Officer Ward -1, Jorhat

ITA 20/GTY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati17 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 119(1)Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 139(9)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 80

mandatory as per various judgement of the Apex Court/ High Court/ ITAT. 6. That white processing the impugned intimation u/s 143(1)(a)} section 143(1)(a)(v) of the Act specifically provides that the deduction u/s 80-1E of the Act can be disallowed only if the return ... received manually on 17.11.2022), without the issuance of any intimation of such adjustments to the appellant as per proviso to section 143(1)(a). The appellant came to know the intimation order only when it noticed the demand which was responded vide response acknowledgement no, vide acknowledgement No FOS002167331000 dated

Nagahat Tea Estate Private Limited, Kolkata vs. Income Tax Officer Ward -1, Jorhat

ITA 19/GTY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati17 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 119(1)Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 139(9)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 80