← 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)

Star Wire (India) Vidyut Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-22(2), Delhi

ITA 4259/DEL/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Sept 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Accountnat Member & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250Section 270ASection 80I

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘A’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTNAT MEMBER AND SHRI

Vaks Multiple Service Private Limited, Faridabad vs. ACIT, Faridabad

In the result, Miscellaneous Application of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3255/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Vaks Multiple Service Vs Acit Plot No. 58-59, D L F Main Cgo Complex, Nh 4, Market, Sector-11, Faridabad, Nit, Faridabad, Haryana Haryana Pan: Aaecv4819M Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Ankit Gupta, Ca Revenue By Sh. Dheeraj Kumar Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 03/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/09/2025 Order Per Yogesh Kumar, U.S. Jm: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac’ For Short), New Delhi Dated 17/03/2025 For The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That, The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The A.Y.2019-20 Having Gross Total Income Of Rs. 79,44,337/-. During The Processing Of Itr U/S. 143(1)(A), The Cpc Had Disallowed Rs. 33,02,357/- On Account Of Delay In Payment Of Employees Share Of Esi & Pf. Being Aggrieved With The Aforesaid Disallowance Of Rs. 33,02,357/-, The Assessee Filed An Appeal Before National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac). The Cit (Nfac) Vide Order Vaks Multiple Service Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit

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

1 ITA No.3255/Del/2025 Vaks Multiple Service Pvt. ltd. Vs. ACIT IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI (DELHI BENCH ‘E

Sree Vishwabharathi Charitable Trust, Bengaluru vs. ITO Ward 3(2)(1), Benglauru, Bengaluru

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

ITA 859/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri K.H Nagaraj, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate – Standing
Section 10Section 12ASection 143(1)(a)Section 144Section 2(15)Section 69C

objects of Rs. 30,45,214/- only. The assessee thus declared total income at NIL. 5. The CPC issued a communication under section 143(1)(a) of the Act dated 1 March 2019. It proposed a disallowance of Rs. 30,45,214/-, being the amount claimed as application towards

Riddhi Siddhi Sewa Sansthan, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-6(2), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 899/JPR/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Completion Of The Processing U/S 143(1). 2. The Appellant Craves To Alter, Amend & Modify Any Ground Of Appeal. 3.Necessary Cost Be Awarded To The Assessee.”

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250

No.10BB inadvertently. Further in the return of income there is no error. Hence the adjustment made do not fall within the purview of section 143(1)(a)(ii). Otherwise also, income is required to be computed as per the provisions of the Act. Even if there is any mistake ... No.10BB inadvertently. Further, in the return of income there is no error. Hence the adjustment made do not fall within the purview of section 143(1)(a)(ii). Otherwise also, income is required to be computed as per the provisions of the Act. Even if there is any mistake

Prathna Charitable Trust, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-2-Exemp, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee being ITA

ITA 1028/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 250

registration under Section 12AA of the Act on 29.10.2014, which was rejected for technical reasons. The CPC while processing the return under Section 143(1) of the Act, has made adjustment and the gross receipt of Rs.10,33,362/- was brought to tax without allowing the expenditure incurred ... this appeal are identical and the entire gross receipts of Rs.7,83,405/- was treated as income while processing the return under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act and the deduction for expenditure of Rs.6,99,505/- claimed by the assessee was ignored. In this year, there

Prathna Charitable Trust, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-2, Exemp, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee being ITA

ITA 1027/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 250

registration under Section 12AA of the Act on 29.10.2014, which was rejected for technical reasons. The CPC while processing the return under Section 143(1) of the Act, has made adjustment and the gross receipt of Rs.10,33,362/- was brought to tax without allowing the expenditure incurred ... this appeal are identical and the entire gross receipts of Rs.7,83,405/- was treated as income while processing the return under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act and the deduction for expenditure of Rs.6,99,505/- claimed by the assessee was ignored. In this year, there

Narayansinthy Gajendra Patro, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle 13(1), Aayakar Bhavan, Hyderabad

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

ITA 698/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA Srikanth PolireddyFor Respondent: Sri Suresh Babu KN, Sr. AR
Section 143(1)Section 234Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)

impugned assessment year 2020-2021 and claimed refund of Rs.3,87,300/-. The AO-CPC has processed the return under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short “the Act”] with an addition of Rs.14,66,815/- and raised a demand of Rs.88,660/-. The said addition

Rain Cements, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-3(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 540/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Sri Deepak Chopra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri Madan Mohan Meena, Sr. AR
Section 115Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 234CSection 246A

filed return of income for the assessment year 2015-16 on 25.03.2016 declaring total income at Rs.53,22,84,650/-. The intimation under section 143(1) was passed on 25.03.2016 determining total income at Rs.53,22,84,650/-. It is pertinent to note that the appellant failed to file appeal ... within 30 days from the order under section 143(1). The appellant has filed appeal on 29.05.2020 against the intimation under section 143(1) dated 25.03.2016. It is found that the appeal is filed after lapse of 1491 days hence, before deciding the issue on merit, the reasons for delay

Sujoy Krishna Jana, Kolkata vs. DCIT/ACIT, Circle 27(1), Haldia

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

ITA 1236/KOL/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Sept 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

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

case, the ADDL/JCIT(A)- 4, Mumbai, had failed to appreciate/understand that the amendment to sub clause (iv) of clause (a) to section 143(1) was brought into the statute with effect from Assessment Year 2021-22 and the same could not have been invoked for the Assessment Year under Appeal ... circumstances of the case, the ADDL/JCIT(A)- 4, Mumbai had failed to understand/appreciate that no adjustments in an intimation passed under section 143(1)(a) is permissible when such adjustments involve a debatable issue on which more than one views are possible. 5. That on the facts

Sujoy Krishna Jana, Kolkata vs. DCIT/ACIT, Circle 27(1), Haldia

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

ITA 1235/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Sept 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

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

case, the ADDL/JCIT(A)- 4, Mumbai, had failed to appreciate/understand that the amendment to sub clause (iv) of clause (a) to section 143(1) was brought into the statute with effect from Assessment Year 2021-22 and the same could not have been invoked for the Assessment Year under Appeal ... circumstances of the case, the ADDL/JCIT(A)- 4, Mumbai had failed to understand/appreciate that no adjustments in an intimation passed under section 143(1)(a) is permissible when such adjustments involve a debatable issue on which more than one views are possible. 5. That on the facts

Sri Sainath Associates, Lucknow vs. Dy.CIT-6, Lucknow

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

ITA 649/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow11 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 143(3)Section 253(3)

r.w.s. 36(1)(va) of the Act relying upon the information given by the auditor in Form 3CD. As per the provisions of section 143(1)(a)(iv) the following adjustment can be made: “143. (1) Where a return has been made under section 139, or in response

Gulamahemad Hamidulla Khan, Pune vs. ITO Ward 14(3), Pune

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

ITA 165/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath Murkunde
Section 139Section 148Section 148ASection 69A

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

M/S. Ebek Language Laboratories Pvt. Ltd., Trichy vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Trichy

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1508/CHNY/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Sept 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1507 & 1508/Chny/2025 धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2022-23 & 2023-24 M/S. Ebek Language Dcit Laboratories Pvt Ltd., Vs. Circle 1(1), No. 6A, 4Th Floor, Gvr Complex, Trichy. Lawsons Road, Trichy – 620 001. [Pan: Aabce-7268-C] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. D. Anand, Advocate प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Arv. Sreenivasan. Cit.

For Appellant: Shri. D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. ARV. Sreenivasan. CIT
Section 115BSection 143(1)

concessional rate of tax under section 115BAA by CPC is a debatable issue, which is not permissible as a prima facia adjustment under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act. 5. The NFAC ought to have seen that the denial of the option to the appellant to concessional rate ... which renders the 143(1) order as legally untenable and bad in law. 6. The NFAC while upholding the intimation of CPC under section 143(1) failed to see that once the appellant opts for regime under section 115BA the appellant cannot revert to regular tax scheme. ITA Nos.1508/Chny/2025: 1

M/S. Ebek Language Laboratories Pvt. Ltd., Trichy vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Trichy

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1507/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Sept 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1507 & 1508/Chny/2025 धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2022-23 & 2023-24 M/S. Ebek Language Dcit Laboratories Pvt Ltd., Vs. Circle 1(1), No. 6A, 4Th Floor, Gvr Complex, Trichy. Lawsons Road, Trichy – 620 001. [Pan: Aabce-7268-C] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. D. Anand, Advocate प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Arv. Sreenivasan. Cit.

For Appellant: Shri. D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. ARV. Sreenivasan. CIT
Section 115BSection 143(1)

concessional rate of tax under section 115BAA by CPC is a debatable issue, which is not permissible as a prima facia adjustment under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act. 5. The NFAC ought to have seen that the denial of the option to the appellant to concessional rate ... which renders the 143(1) order as legally untenable and bad in law. 6. The NFAC while upholding the intimation of CPC under section 143(1) failed to see that once the appellant opts for regime under section 115BA the appellant cannot revert to regular tax scheme. ITA Nos.1508/Chny/2025: 1

Arun Kumar Natrarajan, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(3), Bangalore

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

ITA 489/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Sri N. Ramesh, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Ganesh R Ghale, D.R
Section 139Section 143(1)(a)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 3Section 69ASection 69B

ITA No.489/Bang/2025 Arun Kumar Natarajan, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT

Vishay Jabil and Helvoet Employees Co-Op Cr Soc Ltd, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 14(3), Pune

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 912/PUN/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Sept 2025AY 2022-2023

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Tripathi (Virtual)
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 80ASection 80P(2)(a)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “SMC” BENCH : PUNE BEFORE DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A.No.912/PUN/2025 (Assessment Year

M P Birla Foundation Educational Society, Kolkata vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Kolkata

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

ITA 989/KOL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

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

claimed u/s. I.T.A. No.: 989/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 M P Birla Foundation Educational Society. 10(23C)(vi) is beyond the scope of section 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) and therefore the Intimation dated March 18, 2020 issued ... response within 30 days from the issuance of the said communication failing which the return would be processed after making necessary adjustment under section 143(1)(a) of the Act as proposed without providing any further opportunities. 4. The appellant, on December 23, 2019, duly replied the said Communication dated

Harjeet Singh Chhabra, Raipur vs. ITO, Ward-1, Raipur (Erst. ITO-1(3), Raipur)

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 469/RPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur09 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.469/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-14 Harjeet Singh Chhabra H. No.84, Las Vista, Mahaveer Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 (C.G.) Pan: Adkpc0408P .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Central Circle-1, Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Hardik Jain, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 4

following the procedure like issue of notice under section 143(2)/142. This does not pro-vide accepting the return as provided under section 143(1)(a) : the officer has to complete the assessment under section 143(3) only. If an assessment is to be completed under section 143

Nararshabh Sharma, Pune vs. Assessing Officer, Ward 7(3), Pune, Aayakar Sadan Pune

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

ITA 1530/PUN/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Sept 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad

For Appellant: Shri Rajkumar Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Kumar Kedia-JCIT
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(9)Section 140BSection 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 250Section 80T

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “SMC” BENCH : PUNE BEFORE DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A.No.1530/PUN/2025 (Assessment Year

Kothari Agritech Pvt. Ltd, Solapur vs. The DCIT, Circle-1, Solapur

In the result, the both appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2455/PUN/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Sept 2025AY 2018-2019

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

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 80Section 801ASection 80ISection 80J

account of disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D, to the income of Rs.11,63,23,680/- determined as per order under section 143(1)(a) of the Act. However, no disallowance under section 80IA was made by the Ld. FAO while passing the assessment order. With regard ... Thus, as mentioned in the notice u/s 154 dated 12th June 2023, since due to oversight, it was missed thatcomputation was based on section 143(1) for assessed income, it cannot be conclusively said that FAO accepted the deduction u/s 801A of IT act. Also, it is re-iterated that