“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)

Shri Barwala Panjrapole, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-2, Exemp., Ahmedabad

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

ITA 88/AHD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Divyang Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Hargovind Singh, Sr. DR

Section 11Section 12A(1)(B)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154

appeal.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee/applicant trust filed return of income on 14.10.2022. Thereafter, notice under Section 143(1)(a) dated 14.02.2023 was issued by CPC, wherein certain adjustments were proposed. The assessee/applicant trust could not file response to the said Shri Barwala Panjrapole ... Asst. Year –2022-23 - 2– notice and on 04.04.2023 an intimation order under Section 143(1) of the Act was passed, wherein exemption under Section 11 of the Act, claimed by the assessee was withdrawn and income amounting to Rs. 2,34,78,541/- was treated as income

Rogi Kalyan Samiti Chital, Chital Amreli vs. ITO Exemption Ward-2 Rajkot, Rajkot

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

ITA 328/RJT/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot18 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.328/Rjt/2023 Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Rogi Kalyan Samiti Chital, Income Tax Officer C. H. C. Chital, Chital District, Vs. (Exemption), Ward – 2, Rajkot Amreli-365 601 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aactr 0652 F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 154Section 234A

copy of original return, before the Bench, which is placed in paper book page no.41 to 42. The said return was processed under section 143(1) by the CPC, Bangalore. As per the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act, the benefit of exemption u/s 11 was not allowed ... time limit, the AO should have considered the revised return filed by the assessee- trust and should have amended the intimation issued under section 143(1)(a) of the Act, on the basis of the revised return. However, the AO has failed to do so. 11. We note that

Ajinkya Madhyamik Shikshak Sevak Sah. Patsanstha, Maryadit, Satara vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Satara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2214/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Prateek JhaFor Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastava

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 80ASection 80P

erred in not appreciating that denial of deduction claimed under section 80P of the IT Act while processing return under section 143(1) was without jurisdiction and bad in law. 3. The Ld CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the assessee was entitled to deduction of Rs.36 ... ADIT has not given reasons for denying the assessee deduction claimed under section 80P of the IT Act in the intimation issued under section 143(1) of the IT Act. It appears however that he did so on the ground that the return of income was not uploaded within time

Aban Singapore Pte Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Intl Tax 1(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 500/CHNY/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jun 2025AY 2022-2023

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.500/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2022-23 Aban Singapore Pte Limited Deputy Commissioner Of Income Room No.8713, Bsnl Building, Tax, 4Th Floor, Bsnl Towers, Intl Tax-1(1), No.16, Greams Road, Chennai. Chennai [Pan: Aaqca2845Q]

For Appellant: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao, C.AFor Respondent: Shri N.Rajakumar, Addl.CIT

Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36Section 43BSection 44B

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, ‘ए’ न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI श्री एबी टी. वर्की, न्यायिर्क

Stans Buildtech Life Spaces, Mumbai vs. DCIT, 41(4)(4), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 370/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Ms. Neha Paranjpe, ARFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 234BSection 234CSection 250Section 433Section 43B

erred in passing the order dated 09.01.2025 dismissing the appeal of the Assessee. The Assessee was not aware of the intimation issued under Section 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee came to know of the intimation only when he received the recovery notice for income ... recovery notice, the assessee immediately reviewed the records available on the Income Tax Department's website and identified the intimation issued under Section 143(1)(a). Recognizing the urgency and importance of the matter, the assessee took prompt action and filed an appeal against the demand on 02.09.2022. Hence, there

DCIT Central Circle-17, New Delhi vs. Al Ammar Frozen Foods Exports Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi

ITA 2180/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri S Rifaur Rahman

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 44ASection 80I

under Section 139(5) of the Act. 3. On 26.11.2020, the CPC issued an intimation under Section 143(1) of the Act proposing the following two adjustments under Section 143(1)(a): a. Disallowance of deduction under Section 80IB(11A) for not filing Form 10CCB and corresponding Schedule 801B ... DCTT [2019] 107 taxmann.com 213 (Kolkata - Trib.) c. DCIT v. Kamdhenu Builders and Developers [ITA No. 7010/Mum/2010 (Mumbai - Trib.)] • Scope of Section 143(1) of the Act 20. With regards to the case at hand, it is further submitted that the variations sought to be made in the intimation issued

Sarvoday Pratishthan, Pune vs. ITO Exemption Ward 1(1), Pune

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

ITA 1200/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Date of hearing

Section 11Section 12ASection 139Section 143(1)(a)Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1200/PUN/2025

Khandra Colliery Employees Co Operative Credit Society Ltd., Bardhaman vs. The AO, CPC Bangalore / ITO, Ward-1(1), Burdwan

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2594/KOL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A), Where Also He Could Not Succeed.

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 234FSection 250Section 80ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

order of coordinate Bench in the case of Durgamondap Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samiti, ITA No. 1153/Kol/2023, dated 24.07.2024. The Ld. AR argued that section 143(1)(a)(v) of the Act was amended w.e.f. 01.04.2021 only and prior to this amendment section 80P of the Act was not included ... have considered the rival submissions and also gone through the documents on record. For the sake of reference, the provisions of Section 143(1)(a)(v) of the Act as they stood prior to amendment, and relevant for the assessment year under consideration are as under: “v) disallowance of deduction

Metro Brands Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1004/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jun 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeassessment Year : 2023-24 Metro Brands Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of 401, Zillion 4Th Floor, Income Tax, Kurla West, Vs. Circle-2(2)(1), Lbs Marg & Aayakar Bhavan, Cst Road Junction, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400070. Pan : Aaacm4754E (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Nitesh Joshi For Revenue : Shri Annavaram Kosuri Date Of Hearing : 04-06-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 17-06-2025 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Addl/Jcit(A)-1, Visakhapatnam [„Ld.Cit(A)‟], Dated 18-12-2024, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2023-24, Wherein The Assessee Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram Kosuri

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 44ASection 80J

portal on 09-10-2023. 3 4. It was submitted that the Centralized Processing Center ("CPC") while processing the return of income under section 143(1) of the Act has proposed an adjustment of Rs. 1,00,36,584/-(i.e. Rs.1,28,57,142/- less Rs. 28,20,558/- being ... amount of deduction reported in Form 10DA of AY 2022-23) under section 143(1)(a)(ii) of Act as under: Sr. Schedule Error Description As per return As computed Variance No. 1. Schedule In Schedule 1,28,57,142/- 28,20,558/- 1

Indian Medical Association Pune Branch, Shukrawar Peth vs. DCIT Exemption Circle, Pune, Swargate

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 767/PUN/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. PathakFor Respondent: Date of hearing

Section 11Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.767/PUN/2025

Ampi Foundation, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 1(4), Exempt, Kolkata

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

ITA 365/KOL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraampi Foundation, Deputy Director Of Income Unimark Asian, 16Th Floor, Tax, Cpc, Bengaluru, 52/1, Shakespeare Sarani, (Jurisdictional Assessing Kolkata - 700017 Vs Officer, Ward 1(4), (Pan: Aadta8073A) Exempt, Kolkata, 10, Middleton Row, Kolkata - 700071 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Siddarth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Kallol Mistry, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 12A(1)(ac)Section 12A(1)(b)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT

Kbs Creation Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy Comm. of Income Tax -Circle 24(1), Mumbai

In the result, the concise ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6477/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 80ISection 92C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH ‘K’, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL

Nariman Point Association, Mumbai vs. ITO Exemption-2(1), Mumbai

In the result, both appeals by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 6160/MUM/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ketan VajaniFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr.DR

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

Income filed by the appellant.” 3. The solitary grievance of the assessee is against the adjustment made by the AO-CPC under section 143(1) of the Act while processing the return of income. ITAs No.6159 & 6160/Mum/2024 (A.Ys. 2021-22 & 2022-23) 3 The brief facts of the case ... declaring a total income of Rs.5,607/- The return filed by the assessee was processed vide intimation dated 25.11.2022 issued under section 143(1) of the Act by the AO–CPC computing the total income of the assessee at Rs.13,00,000, after making the following adjustments under section 143

Nariman Point Association, Mumbai vs. ITO Exemption-2(1), Mumbai

In the result, both appeals by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 6159/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ketan VajaniFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr.DR

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

A2Z Infraservices Limited, Haryana vs. DCIT Central Circle 27, Delhi

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as

ITA 72/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanिनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 बनाम A2Z Infra Services Limited Dcit, O-116, 1St Floor, Dlf Shopping Mall, Vs. Central Circle-2, Arjun Nagar, Dlf Phase-1, Shankar Chowk, Phase-V, Gurgaon, Haryana. Udyog Vihar, Sector-19, Gurugram, Haryana. Pan No.Aahca0139L अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 बनाम A2Z Infra Services Limited Dcit, O-116, 1St Floor, Dlf Shopping Mall, Vs. Central Circle-27, Arjun Marg, Dlf Qe S.O., New Delhi. Sikanderpur, Gurgaon, Haryana. Pan No.Aahca0139L अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 234ASection 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)

return of the assessee was processed by Central Processing Centre (CPC), Bengaluru/Assessing Officer and an intimation order was issued exercising the powers under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act of 1961, wherein, claim for deduction of delayed deposit of employees' share of contribution towards Employees' State Insurance ... Officer has processed the return of the income of assessee, however, on the date when the intimation order was issued exercising powers under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act 1961, the issue with regard to claim of deduction under Section 36(1

A2Z Infraservices Limited, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Faridabad

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as

ITA 970/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 234ASection 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)

Seg Automotive India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(3), Bengaluru

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

ITA 670/BANG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahuandshri. Soundararajan Kassessment Year :2021-22

For Appellant: Shri. Aditya Raipuria, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 154

further directed to give reasonable oppourtunity of being heard to the assessee. The learned Counsel further submitted that the addition under section 143(1) of the Act cannot be made by the CPC only on the basis of audit report and he referred to section 143(1 ... that the addition has been made by the CPC as per the report of the tax auditor which falls under the provisions of section 143(1)(a)(iv) of the Act. Therefore, the addition made by the CPC is correct. Accordingly, we reject the arguments of the learned Counsel

Gram Vikas Trust, Berhampur vs. ITO, Exemption Ward, Berampur

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2014-

ITA 437/CTK/2024[AY 2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack12 Jun 2025

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 11(2)Section 119(2)(b)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 234BSection 250

Assessing Officer have erred in rejecting the petition filed under section 154 on 19/12/2016 for rectifying the intimation under section 143(1)(a) for disallowing deduction claimed under section 11(2), in the light of the fact that a disallowance pertaining to delay in filing of Form 10 cannot ... treated as a prima facie adjustment for the purposes of intimation under section 143(1)(a). Ground No. 2: When Rs. 10,45,000/- has been actually set apart under section 11(2) and reported in Form 10B, delay in uploading Form 10 cannot lead to disallowances. Ground

Gram Vikas Trust, Berhampur vs. ITO, Exemption Ward, Berampur

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2014-

ITA 436/CTK/2024[AY 2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack12 Jun 2025

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 11(2)Section 119(2)(b)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 234BSection 250

DCIT, Swargate Pune vs. Grihum Housing Finance Limited, Pune

In the result, the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1883/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: S/Shri Nikhil Mutha and Abhilash HiranFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 143(1)Section 2(91)Section 36(1)(va)

following grounds in its Cross Objection: 1. Ground 1: Impugned adjustment of the applicable rate of tax is outside the scope of section 143(1) of the Act 1.1 In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO (CPC) erred in making an adjustment/ modifying ... rate of tax of 25% (plus applicable surcharge and cess) to 30% (plus applicable surcharge and cess) without appreciating that the provisions of section 143(1) do not permit any such adjustment/modification. 5 CO No.39/PUN/2024 2 Ground 2: Impugned adjustment to the applicable rate of tax is untenable, not falling