“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)

DCIT CC 8.2 Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Dhirubhai Hirachand Ambani, Mumbai

In the result all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4331/MUM/2024[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jan 2025AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Sunil Kumar Singh

For Appellant: Shri NimeshVoraFor Respondent: Smt. SanyogitaNagpal, (CIT, DR)

Section 143(1)(a)Section 147Section 148Section 250

ITA Nos.4324,4331 & 4345 to 4348/M/2024 C.O. 215 to 220/M/2024 DCIT, CC-8(2) Vs. Late Shri Dhirubhai Hirachand Ambani

DCIT CC 8.2 Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Dhirubhai Hirachand Ambani, Mumbai

ITA 4324/MUM/2024[2002 03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jan 2025

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Sunil Kumar Singh, Juducial Member Ita Nos. 4324, 4331 & 4345 To 4348/Mum/2024 Assessment Years: 2001-02 To 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri NimeshVoraFor Respondent: Smt. SanyogitaNagpal, (CIT, DR)

Section 143(1)(a)Section 147Section 148Section 250

P a g e | 1 ITA Nos.4324,4331 & 4345 to 4348/M/2024 C.O. 215 to 220/M/2024 DCIT,CC-8(2) Vs

Ashapura Minechem Limited, Mumbai vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 4728/MUM/2023[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeassessment Year : 2019-20 Ashapura Minechem Limited, Adit, 3Rd Floor, Centralized Processing Centre, Jeevan Udyog Building, Vs. Income Tax Department, 278, D.N. Road, Fort, Bengaluru Mumbai. Pan : Aaaca0957F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Gaurang SanghaviFor Respondent: Dr. K.R. Subhash, CIT-DR

Section 139Section 142Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “A” BENCH : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE

Co-Operative Cane Development Unian, Ltd., Lakhipur Kheri vs. ITO Ward-3(4), Lakhipur-1

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

ITA 348/LKW/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow02 Jan 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 253(3)Section 80ASection 80P

Return of Income was not filed within the due date. (ii)The disallowance u/s 80(P) was outside the scope and ambit of section 143(1)(a)(iv) for A.Y. 2019-20. It is seen from intimation order that the due date of filing of original return of income ... situation lies in the section 119 of the Act. 4.2 At this stage, it will be relevant to reproduce the relevant provisions of section 143(1) of the Act which is as under: (a) The total income or loss shall be computed after making the following adjustment, namely

Shastri Lal, Gurgaon vs. ITO Ward -4(1), Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3918/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Sh. Rajat Chaudhary, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay 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 264 was made claiming that by mistake the assessee treated the interest income as income from other

Dilbag Singh, Rohtak vs. Income Tax Officer, Rohtak

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3909/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay 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

Vaibhav Singh, Jaipur vs. ITO 1(2), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1081/JPR/2024[AY2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Jan 2025

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Shailesh Mantri, C.AFor Respondent: Shr. Anup Singh, Addl.CIT a

Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 90

Even otherwise, the said Form 67 filed by the assessee before the tax authorities was available before the AO when the intimation under section 143(1) of the Act dated 25.11.2021 was passed. Therefore, in such circumstances, in my view, there were no reasons with the tax authorities for making

Gebbs Healthcare Solutions Private Limited, Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT (1)(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5528/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), MS. PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)

Section 10ASection 115JSection 139Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

income of Rs.18,60,67,160/- has been assessed at the same income of Rs.18,60,67,160/-. Thus, any adjustment made in Section 143(1) does not survive and it becomes infructuous. Accordingly, adjustments made u/s. 143(1) stands deleted. 5. In the result, appeal of the assessee

Chheda Heights Co-Op Hsg Soc Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-26(1)(6), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3462/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 10ASection 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 80ISection 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

above, the return of income was furnished within the due date prescribed u/s.139(1). Thus, the entire disallowance was beyond the scope of Section 143(1) itself. Accordingly, the disallowance made by the CPC and as confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) is set aside and assessee is entitled ... held by the Tribunal in the aforesaid case prior to A.Y.2021-22, no such adjustment could have been made within the scope of Section 143(1). Accordingly, the adjustment made by the CPC is deleted for both the years. Chheda Heights Co. op Hsg. Soc. Ltd. 5. In the result, both

Chheda Height Co-Op Hsg Soc Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 26(1)(6), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3461/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 10ASection 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 80ISection 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

Pfizer Limited, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax- 14(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 3173/MUM/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2024AY 2022-23

For Respondent: Shri Pratik Poddar & Shri Shreyas

Section 143(1)Section 145(2)Section 234Section 43B

whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had partly allowed the appeal preferred by the Assessee against the Intimation Order, dated 29/07/2022, issued under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as `the Act'] for the Assessment Year 2022-2023. 2. The Appellant has raised following grounds ... letter dated 04/01/2023 [copy placed at page 216-217 of the Paper- Book]. 6. Subsequently an Intimation Order, dated 29/07/2023, was issued under Section 143(1) of the Act whereby the following additions/disallowances were made to the returned income of the Assessee on account of: (a) rejection of claim

Roxiler Systems Private Limited, Pune vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward5(4), Pune

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

ITA 2078/PUN/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Dec 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2078/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23 Roxiler Systems Pvt. Ltd., A 508, Kamal Green Leaf, Vs The Income Tax Officer, Khadakwasala, Pune – 411024. Ward-5(4), Pune. Pan: Aahcr8766J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By : Shri Sharad S. Vaze & Shri Amod S. Vaze – Ar’S Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai – Add.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 18/11/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/12/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)Addl./Jcit(A), Mysore For Assessment Year 2022-23Dated 20/08/2024 Passed U/Sec.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Emanating From An Order U/S 143(1) Of The Act Dated 19/08/2023.The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. On The Basis Of Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & As Per Law, Rejection Of Claim U/S 80Iac Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (Act) Is Beyond The Powers Of Cpc, Bengaluru In The Powers Of Cps, Bengaluru In Proceedings U/S 143(1) Of The Act. 2. On The Basis Of Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & As Per Law, The Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Appeals)-Nfac Delhi Is Not Justified In Rejecting The Claim Of The Assessee U/S 80Iac Of The Act. 3. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Alter, Omit Or Substitute Any Of The Grounds At The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal.”

For Appellant: Shri Sharad S. Vaze and Shri Amod S. Vaze – AR’sFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai – Add.CIT(DR)

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 44ASection 80ISection 80J

ground number 1 becomes academic in nature however we are adjudicating it. 5.1. To appreciate the legal position we have reproduced the relevant section 143(1) of the Act as under : 143. (1) Where a return has been made under section 139, or in response to a notice under ... such deduction exceeds specified statutory limit which may have been expressed as monetary amount or percentage or ratio or fraction;(emphasis supplied) 5.2.Thus, section 143(1)(a)(ii) of the Act has clearly directed the AO to disallow any Incorrect Claim made by the assessee which is apparent from

Desai Infra Projects (I) Private Limited, Pune vs. CIT(A), Pune-11, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands

ITA 1852/PUN/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Dec 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 143(1)Section 288Section 44ASection 801ASection 801A(7)Section 80I

same by observing as under : “14. I have considered the facts of the case and the submission made by the appellant. As per section 143(1)(a)(ii) of the Act, the adjustment on account of an incorrect claim, if the same is apparent can be made while processing ... u/s.801A(4) of the Act. Since Form 10CCB was not filed within time, therefore this situation is covered by Explanation (a)(ii) to section 143(1)(a) of the Act. Therefore, the adjustment made by the CPC falls within the provisions of section 143(1)(a) of the Act. Accordingly

Saviynt India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-6(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1962/BANG/2024[2021-22]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore30 Dec 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Khurana, CAFor Respondent: Shri Amrit Raj Singh, Addl. CIT(DR)

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

dated 13/8/2024 wherein the appeal filed by the assessee against the assessment order passed under Page 2 of 9 section 143 (1) of The Income tax Act , 1961 [ The Act ] dated 13/11/2022 passed by The Central Processing Centre, Bangalore (The Learned AO) was dismissed for the reason that the appeal ... circumstances of the case the CPC erred in not considering the response filed by the Appellant against communication received under section 143(1)(a) of the Act. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in dismissing the appeal

The Sangeet Plaza Iftex Office Premises Coop Soc Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is hereby allowed

ITA 5541/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Respondent: Shri Asif Karmali (Sr. DR)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(d)

cannot be challenged by the appellant through the present appeal against order under section 154" without appreciating that, adjustment made in intimation under section 143 (1) was beyond the scope of the section 143 (1)it being not incorrect claim apparent from any information in return, and therefore refusal ... application under section 154 was independent of Intimation under section 143 (1). 2. On the facts, and in circumstances of the case, and in law, learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal) erred in upholding action of the Assessing Officer in making disallowance of claimed under section 80P without appreciating that

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Nashik vs. Chakrahar Contractors and Engineers Private Limited, Jalgaon

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are

ITA 1940/PUN/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Dec 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Sanket M JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR

Section 131Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 270ASection 270A(3)(i)Section 270A(6)(a)Section 270A(9)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “A” BENCH : PUNE BEFORE SHRI RAMA KANTA PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI VINAY

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Nashik vs. Chakradhar Contractors and Engineers Private Limited, Jalgaon

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are

ITA 1939/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Sanket M JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR

Section 131Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 270ASection 270A(3)(i)Section 270A(6)(a)Section 270A(9)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “A” BENCH : PUNE BEFORE SHRI RAMA KANTA PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI VINAY

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Kiri Industries Ltd, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal is allowed and the adjustment made in the intimation under section 143(1) dated August 13, 2017 denying carry forward of loss of Rs

ITA 1170/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Adv. & ShriFor Respondent: Shri A.P. Singh, CIT DR

Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 92E

return of income on 30.11.2016, reporting a total loss of Rs. 95,90,04,541/-. However, the return was processed by CPC under Section 143(1) of the Act on 13.08.2017, which calculated the figure of total loss at Rs. 30,50,51,409/- after disallowing the carry forward loss ... erroneous by CPC. The assessee contended that firstly the adjustment was made without jurisdiction. Since it was beyond what is permitted under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, and secondly the return of income was filed within the due date prescribed by law and therefore no adjustment

Mahatma Fule Gramin Bigar Sheti Shahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Khed vs. ITO Ward8(3), Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2167/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Dec 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2167/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 249(2)Section 250Section 80P

occurred. It was also contended that CPC was incorrect for the reason that clause covering all deductions under Chapter VI is inserted in section 143(1)(a)(v) w.e.f. A.Y. 2021-22, therefore, such adjustment of disallowing section 80P deduction if return is not filed before the due date prescribed ... present Case of the assessee though admittedly return was filed beyond the time limit prescribed u/s 139(1) of the Act but still section 143(1)(a)(v) is not applicable to the assessee since the case of the assessee is for A.Y. 2019-20, which is before the amendment

Ts5 Secure Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ADIT Circle 25(1), Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3767/DEL/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Dec 2024AY 2019-2020

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godarats5 Secure Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Adit, M-1, Intermediate Circle-25(1), Floor, Samrat Bhawan, Delhi A-7, 8,9, Ranjit Nagar Commnity Centre, New Delhi-110008 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadct9043N Assessee By : Shri Rajinder Rathore, Adv. Revenue By: Shri Sahil Kumar Bansal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 24/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 24/12/2024

For Appellant: Shri Rajinder Rathore, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sahil Kumar Bansal, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 37(1)

date in the corresponding statute that of filing section 139(1) TSS Secure Pvt. Ltd. return as well as in section 143(1)(a) “processing” as well, respectively. 5. So far as the assessee all other arguments on merits regarding the counting of the corresponding date from actual payment