“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)

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(3), Mumbai vs. Pradeep Phulchand Agarwal, Mumbai

ITA 4181/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 69C

Allahabad High Court was, whether in case of completed/unabated assessments, the AO would have jurisdiction to re-open the assessments made under section 143(1)(a) or 143(3) of the Act, 1961 and to reassess the total income taking notice of undisclosed income even found during the search

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Pradeep Phulchand Agarwal, Mumbai

ITA 4136/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 69C

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -3(3), Mumbai vs. Pradeep Phulchand Agarwal, Mumbai

ITA 3852/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 69C

The Bombay Society of the Franciscan Clarist Sisters of the Most Blessed Sacrament, Mumbai vs. ITO Exem Ward 2(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2501/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No.2501/Mum/2025 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2023-2024) The Bombay Society Of V/S. Income Tax Officer, The Franciscan Clarist बिाम Ward 2(4), Mumbai Sisters Of The Most 6Th Floor, Mtnl Tel. Ex. Blessed Sacrament Building, Cumballa Hills, St. Anthony’S Home For The Pedder Road, Mumbai Aged, 51, Chapel Road, 400026 Bandra (West), Mumbai 400050 स्थायी लेखा सुं./जीआइआर सुं./Pan/Gir No: Aaatt0738Q Appellant/अपीलाथी .. Respondent/प्रधिवादी धििााररिी की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Prashant Ghumare, Adv. राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, Sr. Dr (Virtually Present) स िवाई की िारीख / Date Of Hearing 03.09.2025 घोर्णा की िारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 22.09.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Renu Jauhri [A.M.] :- This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Addl/Jcit (A)-2 Delhi, [Cit(A)] Dated 28.02.2025 Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “Act”] For Assessment Year 2023-2024. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds In This Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Prashant Ghumare, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, Sr. DR

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 115BSection 12ASection 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250

power and, consequently, was without jurisdiction; (b) The adjustment so made by the A.O. did not fall under any of the limbs of section 143(1)(a) of the Act; (c) In any case and without prejudice, the issue concerning such adjustment u/s. 115BBI of the Act is highly debatable

Rajhans Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Mogalpura vs. ITO Ward 2, Ahmednagar

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

ITA 1773/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1773/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Rajhans Nagari Sahakari V The Income Tax Officer, Patsanstha Maryadit, S. Ward-2, Pune. 1, Mogalpura, Sangamner, Tal-Sangamner, Dist-Ahmednagar, Ahmednagar – 422605. Pan: Aaaar3555J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Piyush Bafna Revenue By Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar– Add.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 10/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19/09/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2018-19, Dated 20.03.2025 Emanating From Assessment Order U/S.154 Of The I.T.Act, Dated 26.11.2019. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 234ASection 234FSection 250Section 250(6)Section 80P

erred in law and on facts in upholding the disallowance of deduction under section 80P of the Act while processing the return under section 143(1), ignoring that the amendment to section 143(1)(a)(v) permitting such adjustment was introduced by the Finance Act, 2021 with effect from ... without prejudice to a other grounds, Ld. CIT-Appeal and Ld. CPC have erred in confirming/making the addition of Rs 15.02.580/- under section 143(1) which is without jurisdiction and hence, bad in law and thus, the same may please be deleted and quashed 5. On the facts

Late Mr Jagadish Deshpande Through Legal Heir Vrishali Deshpande, Pune vs. Dy/Assit Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Pune

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

ITA 1419/PUN/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Sept 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripote

Section 143(1)(a)Section 159Section 250Section 801ASection 80I

furnishing of Audit Report in Form 10CCB electronically after due date of furnishing, the same cannot be made by way of intimation under section 143(1)(a) of Income Tax Act, 1961 and the disallowance so made vide intimation order under section 143(1)(a) may kindly be deleted

Late Mr Jagadish Deshpande Through Legal Heir Vrishali Deshpande, Pune vs. Dy/Asst Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Pune

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

ITA 1415/PUN/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Sept 2025AY 2022-2023

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripote

Section 143(1)(a)Section 159Section 250Section 801ASection 80I

Animesh Mukherjee, Durgapur vs. I.T.O., Ward - 1(4), Durgapur

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1903/KOL/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Sept 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

For Appellant: Shri Suvo Chakraborty, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 22(4)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

declaring total income of Rs.39,90,890/-. The return of income filed for the A.Y. 2018-19 was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act, on 08- 01-2020. Similarly, the return of income filed for A.Y. 2019-20 has been processed on 14-05-2020. The ld. AO/CPC ... read with section 43B of the Act and argued that additions made by ld. AO in the intimation issued under Section 143(1) of the Act is contrary to law because the AO has not issued a show-cause 3 ITANo.1902&1903/Kol/2024 notice nor given an opportunity before making

Animesh Mukherjee, Durgapur vs. I.T.O., Ward - 1(4), Durgapur

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1902/KOL/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Sept 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

For Appellant: Shri Suvo Chakraborty, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 22(4)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Tata Communications Payment Solutions Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Aayakar Bhawan Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2230/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankartata Communications V/S. Deputy Commissioner Of Payment Solutions Limited, बनाम Income Tax, Circle – Plot C-21 & C-36, G Block, 14(1)(2), Aayakar Bhavan, Tower 6, Bandra Kurla Mumbai – 400051, Complex, Vidyanagari, S.O., Maharashtra Mumbai–400 098, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadcb3924G Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Subhash Bains, ARFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi (Sr. DR)

Section 143(1)Section 37Section 40Section 40A(7)

case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the additions made in the intimation dated November 8, 2019 issued under section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Centralized Processing Centre, Bangalore (hereinafter referred ... proper evaluation of the issues involved. The ld.DR relied on the appellate order. 6. On perusal of the aforesaid provisions of Section 143(1)(a) of the Act wherein the first proviso to the section casts a duty upon the AO that if any disallowance of expenditure indicated

Henna Industries Private Limited, Faridabad vs. Asst. Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 4730/DEL/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Vibhor Garg, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 43BSection 44A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘B’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI NAVEEN

Priyesh Singhania, Raipur vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 462/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.462/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Priyesh Singhania 730/1, Radha Kunj, Opposite Vip Guest House, Pahuna, Shankar Nagar Main Road, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Aoups7838A ........अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Circle-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Kumar Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 10Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 194D

making adjustment on the basis of information available in the Form 26AS related to TDS u/s.194DA as the provisions of Section 143(1)(a)(vi) stipulates that addition of income can be made but the refund of the maturity proceeds of Life Insurance Policy is not an income ... addition involving legal interpretation and factual clarification falls beyond the scope of prima facie adjustments permissible under ub clause (0 to (vi) of section 143(1)(a). The impugned addition made by the CPC is bad in law. If at all the observation of the CPC had to be processed

Umang Boards Limited, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-1 Jaipur, Jaipur

12. In view of the above discussion, this appeal filed by the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 969/JPR/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Sept 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Learned Cit(A), Challenging Intimation U/S 143(1) Of The Act, Relating To The Assessment Year 2018-19. Said Appeal Came To Be Dismissed, While Observing That Despite Issuance Of Notices U/S 250 Of The Act, There Was No Participation In The Appellate Proceedings By The Appellant & The Appeal Deserved To Be Dismissed In View Of The Material On Record.

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36

under the Act i.e. without passing any assessment order. In this regard, Ld. AR for the appellant has referred to the provisions of section 143(1)(a), on the following decisions:-  Raj Kumar Bothra vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), TAXC No. 56 of 2025.  A2Z Infra Services Limited v. DCIT ... grounds of appeal raised before learned CIT(A) was that adjustments made in the intimation, were outside the purview of section 143(1)(a) of the Act, and as such, said action on the part of the AO was illegal, unjustified and arbitrary. Learned CIT(A) did not find

Ultra Corpotech P L Employee Group Gratuity Cum Life Assurance Scheme, Pune vs. ITO, Exemption, Ward-1(2), Pune

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

ITA 1667/PUN/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Sept 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde

Section 10Section 10(25)Section 10(25)(iv)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250

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

Church of Our Lady of Immaculate Conception, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Exemption Ward 1(2), Mumbai

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by assessee are allowed

ITA 4999/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Sept 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 11Section 12A(1)(b)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 254(1)

Appellate Order may kindly be quashed and/or set aside as bad in law and invalid. II. DENIAL OF EXEMPTION UNDER THE INTIMATION UNDER SECTION 143(1) OF THE ACT IS INVALID: Without prejudice to the above, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... Appellant by the Central Processing Centre, Bengaluru (CPC/learned Assessing Officer) while processing the Return of Income under Section 143(1) of the Act is bad in law and illegal. 2.2. It is submitted that the basic issue leading to denial of exemption under Section 11 of the Act viz. delay

Church of Our Lady of Immaculate Conception, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Exemption Ward 1(2), Mumbai

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by assessee are allowed

ITA 4998/MUM/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Sept 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 11Section 12A(1)(b)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 254(1)

Loreal India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO, Mumbai

In the result, ground no. 25 to 35 including 27(a) are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 6623/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Smt.Renu Jauhri(Physical Hearing)

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 254(1)Section 4Section 92Section 928Section 92C

144C(3) of the Act is barred by limitation in view the provisions of Section 153(1) of the Act; C Adjustment under section 143(1)(a) 25. The learned AO erred in holding that even after the assessment proceedings have culminated and are completed, the intimation under Section 143 ... learned AO erred in computing total income of the Appellant by mere relying on the intimation issued under Section 143(1) of the Act determining an erroneous total income and tax liability, and disregarding total income declared in Return of income filed by the Appellant; 28. The learned AO erred

Intellect Bizware Services Private Limited, Navi Mumbai vs. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer Ward 15(2)(1), Aayakar Bhawan, Mumbai

ITA 4854/MUM/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Sept 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 254(1)

proposed adjustments u/s 143(1)(a) of the Act either in writing or in electronic mode as required by FIRST PROVISO to section 143(1)(a) of the Act. Appellant Company submits that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, order passed

Intellect Bizware Services Private Limited, Navi Mumbai vs. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer Ward 15(2)(1), Aayakar Bhawan, Mumbai

ITA 4853/MUM/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Sept 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 254(1)

Eastern Shipping Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

Accordingly grounds raised by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2787/MUM/2025[2023-2024]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Sept 2025AY 2023-2024

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosaineastern Shipping Pvt Ltd Vs. Ito – 6(2)(1) Godrej Coliseum, Office No. Aayakar Bhavan 801, 8Th Floor, C Wing, Of Mumbai Somaiya Hospital Road, Sion East, Mumbai – 400022. Pan/Gir No. Aahce1084E (Applicant) (Respondent)

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

granted by the Deputy Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru ("the Assessing Officer") while processing its return of income vide Intimation passed under section 143(1) of the Income- tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") dated 09.01.2024. 2. The CIT (A) erred in dismissing the appellant's claim for TDS which ... granted in the intimation passed under section 143 (1) of the Act based on Rule 37 BA by applying a proportionate formula. 3. The CIT (A) erred in not considering appellant's ground where it was mentioned that out of the total amount of revenue of Rs. 1