← 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)

Estate of Satibai Tahilram Chellaram, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2391)(6), Mumbai

In the result, a ground of appeal of the assessee for AY 2021-22 is

ITA 1417/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jul 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh

Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 254(1)

Appeals erred in not accepting the plea the charging of higher rate of tax by the CPC was beyond his power under section 143(1)(a) and he ought to have directed the CPC to charge proper tax in the intimation passed u/s 143(1)(a) of the Income ... Appeals erred is not upholding the ground up appeal that the CPC has acted beyond its powers under section 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act in applying the maximum marginal rate of tax which power is not granted while passing an intimation u/s 143(1

Estate of Satibai Tahilram Chellaram, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 23(1)(6), Mumbai

In the result, a ground of appeal of the assessee for AY 2021-22 is

ITA 4757/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh

Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 254(1)

Appeals erred in not accepting the plea the charging of higher rate of tax by the CPC was beyond his power under section 143(1)(a) and he ought to have directed the CPC to charge proper tax in the intimation passed u/s 143(1)(a) of the Income ... Appeals erred is not upholding the ground up appeal that the CPC has acted beyond its powers under section 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act in applying the maximum marginal rate of tax which power is not granted while passing an intimation u/s 143(1

Netmatrix Crop Care Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-5(1), Hyderabad

ITA 599/HYD/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Jul 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Us:

For Appellant: Shri Jaydeep, C.AFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 50BSection 54E

declaring an income of Rs. 75,19,06,190/-. The return of income was initially processed as such under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act. Thereafter, the A.O., vide his order passed under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act dated 12.09.2022, assessed the income of the assessee

Praveen Saxena, Lucknow vs. ITO-6(1), Lucknow-New

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 202/LKW/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow03 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2020-21 Praveen Saxena V. Income Tax Officer 6(1) Flat No.G-01, Tower-J Lucknow - New Shalimar Gallant Vigyanpuri, Mahanagar Lucknow Tan/Pan:Ajpps5818N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Samrat Chandra, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 07.02.2024, Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For Assessment Year 2020-21. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 09.01.2021, Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.22,57,120/- & Also Claimed Relief Under Section 90 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’) For A Sum Of Rs.3,48,632/- Being Foreign Tax Credit. The Centralized Processing Centre (Cpc) Processed The Return Under Section 143(1) Of The Act & Rejected The Relief Of Rs.3,48,632/- Claimed By The Assessee Under Section 90 Of The

For Appellant: Shri Samrat Chandra, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 90

called “the Act’) for a sum of Rs.3,48,632/- being Foreign Tax Credit. The Centralized Processing Centre (CPC) processed the return under section 143(1) of the Act and rejected the relief of Rs.3,48,632/- claimed by the assessee under section 90 of the ITA No.202/LKW/2024 Page ... passed by the CPC, rejecting rectification application under section 154 of the Act and not against the proceedings initiated by the CPC under section 143(1) of the Act. The NFAC observed that the assessee ought to have filed appeal against the intimation under section 143(1

Effort Foudation (N.G.O), Delhi vs. ITO, Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1204/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 1204/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Effort Foundation (N.G.O.), Vs Income Tax Officer, Flat No. 233, Pocket-10, Nasirpura, Exemption Ward-1(1), Dwarka, New Delhi-110045 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaae4486D Assessee By: An Adjournment Application Revenue By : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 03.07.2025 Order

For Appellant: An Adjournment ApplicationFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)(b)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 57

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member ITA No

Rajasthan Prashasnik Seva Parishad, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward Exemption-1, Jaipur

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

ITA 473/JPR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Me. The Only

For Appellant: Shri Sharwan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 143(1)(A)Section 143(3)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR Jh euh"k cksjkM

Virat Solvent Private Limited, Surajpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1), Bilaspur

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes, in terms of over aforesaid observations

ITA 384/RPR/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur30 Jun 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 384/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2023-24)

For Appellant: Shri R. B. Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 139Section 142Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250

contra Ld. Sr. DR representing the revenue vehemently supported the order of Ld. CIT(A) and submitted that as per provisions of section 143(1) clause (a)(ii) the CPC is entitled to make necessary adjustment about an incorrect claim, if such incorrect claim is apparent from any information ... return. For the sake of inference, the provision of Section 143(1)(a)(ii) of the Act, has been extracted as under: 4 Virat Solvent Private Limited vs. DCIT-1(1), Bilaspur 143. (1) Where a return has been made under section 139, or in response to a notice under

Chimanlal Bhutalal Sagar, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commisioner of Income Tax (International Taxation)-1, Rajkot

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

ITA 126/RJT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 126/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (208-19) (Hybrid Hearing) Chimanlal Bhutalal Sagar Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income C/.O Ca Himansu Gandhi, 10Th Floor, D Tax (International Taxation)-1, Wing, Trade World Building, Kamala Room N.312, Ito, Amruta Mills Compaund, Lower Parle – 400013 Building, Nr. Girnar Cinema, M. G. Road, Gujarat – 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Fdmps3665D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Himansu Gandhi, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 01/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/06/2025

For Appellant: Shri Himansu Gandhi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 144CSection 147Section 234ASection 250Section 271ASection 69

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DINESH MOHAN

Bank of India Karmachari Sahakari Patasanstha Maryadit, Pune vs. CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 186/PUN/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jun 2025AY 2022-2023

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.186/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2022-23

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 80ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

Rs.30,00,457/-. On going through the provisions of section 80AC of the Act with the conjoint reading of section 143(1)(a) of the Act I note that for the year under appeal CPC is well within its jurisdiction to make prima-facie adjustment disallowing the deduction claimed under

Koyana Madhyavarti Dughalay Sevak Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit Karad, Satara vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Satara

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2774/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2774/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Smt Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 250Section 80ASection 80P

filed within the stipulated time limit provided u/s 139(1) of the Act, section 80AC of the Act is invoked. On perusal of section 143(1)(a)(v) of the Act, I observe that by Finance Act 2021 effective from 01.4.2021 powers have given to the CPC to make disallowance

Indo-Mim Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 587/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.587/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21) M/S. Indo-Mim Ltd Vs. Dy.Cit Circle 2(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aabci0484L (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 25/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 30/06/2025 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Dr. Sachin Kumar, DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)

ITA No 587 of 2025 INDO MIM Ltd आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE

Primary Agriculture Co Operative Society Wankidi, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-1, Manchirial

ITA 500/HYD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Us:

For Appellant: Shri T. Chaitanya KumarFor Respondent: Shri Ashutosh Pradhan
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 80ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

appreciating that the CPC passed the intimation order on 13.12.2024 before the expiry of the statutory response period, i.e., 14.12.2024, as provided under section 143(1) and its second proviso, thereby violating principles of natural justice. 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the processing of return before ... expiry of the statutory time is an irregularity and not an illegality, contrary to the express provisions of section 143(1) of the Act. 4. The learned CIT(A) grossly erred in confirming the disallowance of the appellant's claim for deduction under section 80P of the Act, without appreciating

F5 Networks Innovation Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-17(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 912/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Narender Kumar Naik
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 92C

filed for the year under consideration declared total income at Rs. 58,27,68,190/- only. The return of income was processed under section 143(1) of the Act wherein the CPC disallowed the claim of gratuity expenses for Rs. 5,13,01,761/- as per the provision of section ... while finalising the draft assessment order computed the total income after taking into account the income computed under intimation order under section 143(1) of the Act and addition of TP adjustment. 27. The aggrieved assessee raised an objection before the learned DRP and contend that during the year

Football Players Association of India, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 1(2), Exemption, Kolkata

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 415/KOL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 11Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, KOLKATA SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A

Football Player Association of India, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Exemption, Kolkata

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 414/KOL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: the ITAT for the sake of convenience the grounds pertaining to ITA No. 414/Kol/2025 (AY 2018-19) are extracted for reference: “1. For that, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the action of the A.O (CPC) in assessing the income of the assessee at Rs.1,07,17,801/- against the returned income of Rs.63,510/- by denying the exemption claimed by the assessee u/s 11 of the Act on the ground that the Audit Report in Form 10B and the Ret

Section 11Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, KOLKATA SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A

Trisita Engineering LLP, Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., CPC, Bengaluru

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2040/KOL/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Jun 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 250Section 40

adjustment/disallowance of Rs. 15,00,000 which is not permissible as it is not covered by any of the situations mentioned in Section 143(1)(a)(i) to 143(1)(a)(vi) resulting in an adjustment which is ultra vires. 6. That under the facts and circumstances of the case ... upholding the adjustment/disallowance made by the Asst. Director of Income Tax, CPC Bengaluru not permissible being outside the purview of Section 143(1)(a)(i) to 143(1)(a)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 7. That under the facts and circumstances of the case

Thejaswini Jakkaraju, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(2)(2), Bangalore

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 218/BANG/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jun 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2024-25

For Appellant: S/Shri B.S. Balachandra, Advocate & Gurudath, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Revenue
Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 87A

therefore rejection of return of income of the assessee claiming such rebate is not proper. He further submitted that the provisions of section 143(1)(a) also do not refer to the adjustment on account of relief u/s. 87A of the Act. Therefore, the order

Income-Tax Officer, Ward-7(2)(1), Bengaluru vs. M/S. Bangalore Credit Co-Operative Society Limited, Bengaluru

ITA 2347/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Respondent: Sri Sandeep Chalapathy, A.R
Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

ITA Nos.2347 & 2348/Bang/2024 & CO Nos.4 & 5/Bang/2025 M/s. Bangalore Credit Co-operative Society Ltd., Bangalore “A”BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM

Power Research and Development Consultants Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 3(1)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the additional ground is allowed

ITA 1100/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Hemant Pai, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, JCIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 37

issuing a proposal communicating the adjustments proposed to be made by him as prescribed under the first proviso of section 143(1)(a) of the Act on the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the Assessing Officer erred ... contribution on the facts and circumstances of the case. 8. The authorities below failed to appreciate that the adjustment made under section 143(1)(a) of the Act is bad in law as it exceeds the limited scope to carry out prima facie adjustments and arithmetical corrections stipulated under section

Odyssey Corporation Limited, Mumbai vs. Dict Circle 2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 808/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 808/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2020-21) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 807/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2021-22) Odyssey Corporation Ltd. B/102, Haridarshan Bldg., Kandivali West S. O Mumbai, Maharashtra- 400067 V/S. बनाम Dcit-Circle 2(3)(1), Mumbai Room No. 552, 5Th Floor, Ayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai, Maharashtra- 400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaco0463C Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी निर्धारिती की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Vipul Joshi A/W Ms. Dinkle Hariya राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri Yogesh Kumar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing 08.05.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 30.06.2025

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Joshi a/w Ms. DinkleFor Respondent: Shri Yogesh Kumar
Section 115BSection 115JSection 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 250

beyond his power/competence u/s.143 (1) of the Act; (ii) The claim of the Appellant does not fall under any of the limbs of section 143(1)(a) of the Act and such a claim could not be treated as an incorrect claim; (iii) In any case and without prejudice