“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)

Ken Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1006/BANG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jun 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George Kr Assessment Year : 2019-20 M/S. Ken Private Limited, Vs. Dcit, C 103 Trivoli Apartment, Block Vento, Circle – 4(3)(1), 1St Floor, Segehalli Village, Bengaluru. Whitefield, Hoskote Road, Bengaluru – 560 067. Pan : Aaecp 8792 R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Sandeep Chalapathy, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel For Department. Date Of Hearing : 24.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.06.2024

For Appellant: Shri. Sandeep Chalapathy, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Department

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

Year is 2019-20. 2. The solitary issue that is raised is whether CIT(A) is justified in confirming the intimation passed under section 143(1)(a) of the Act, wherein the deduction of employees’ contribution of Rs.4,12,746/- under section 36(1)(va) of the Act was disallowed ... return of income was filed on 31.10.2019 declaring income of Rs.23,65,770/-. The return of income was processed under section 143(1) of the Act vide order dated 06.07.2020. In the said intimation, there was a disallowance in respect of employees’ contribution to the PF and ESI since

Vinay Konchady Shenoy, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 455/BANG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jun 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Ramesh .C, CA

Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 234ASection 54Section 55A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC-‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD

M/S. Prazim Trading and Investment Company Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1039/BANG/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jun 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2021-22 M/S. Prazim Trading & Investment Vs. Dcit, Company Private Limited, Circle – 3(1)(1), 574, Next To Wipro Corporate Office, Bengaluru. Sarjapur Road, Doddakkanelli, Bengaluru – 560 035. Pan : Aaacp 4921 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. B. K. Manjunath, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Subramanian S, Addl. Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 02.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.06.2024

For Appellant: Shri. B. K. Manjunath, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

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

along with interest amounting to Rs.12,87,27,475/- and claimed balance refund of Rs.28,370/-. Thereafter, the assessee received a notice under section 143(1)(a) of the Act proposing adjustment of Rs.4,93,34,784/- by alleging the particulars of the incorrect claim as “In Schedule ... back and included in 8b of the schedule BP. 4. Thereafter, the assessee company was served with an intimation dated 13/11/2022 passed under section 143(1) of the Act which carried the alleged incorrect claims adjustment as proposed U/s 143(1)(a) of the Act. This adjustment was mainly attributable

Mahesh Kumar Sukhjika Kedia, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 296/HYD/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Jun 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Kumaran, DR

Section 143(1)(a)

compared to preceding previous year with issues involved “Cash deposit during demonetization”. 4. Learned Assessing Officer PASSED THE ORDER dated 30/12/2019 under section 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), without any adverse comments or addition in respect of the large investments in property or capital

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax - 4(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Iifl Home Finance Limited, Mumbai

In the result, ground no. 4 of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1297/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Pritesh MehtaFor Respondent: Shri H.M. Bhatt (SR.DR.)

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 43BSection 43DSection 69CSection 80M

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “C”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL

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

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

ITA 799/BANG/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jun 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, A.RFor Respondent: Sri M. Harischandra Naik, D.R

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 250Section 37Section 40

ITA No.799/Bang/2024 Autoliv India Private Limited, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI

Muniyallappa Bharathi, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(3)(3), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees stands dismissed

ITA 841/BANG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jun 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Subramanya Bhat, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 25oSection 36(1)(va)Section 43

fact and circumstances of the case. 4) The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the intimation issued under section 143(1) of the Act was bad in law, since adjustment made was beyond the scope of the Act, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 5) The learned ... main thrust or scope of the provision and due weightage as well as meaning has to be attributed to the purpose of section 143(1)(a) of the Act.” 7.1 In view of the above, the contention of the assessee that no disallowance could be made u/s 143(1

Debabrata Banerjee, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-34, Kolkata.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1084/KOL/2023[2013-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Jun 2024AY 2013-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm]

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, KOLKATA [Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, AM& Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, JM] I.T.A

Mudit Kumar Bajaj, Ujjain vs. ITO-1(2), Ujjain

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed”

ITA 550/IND/2023[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Indore18 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani(Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aezpb2621P Assessee By Ms. Nupur Ladha & Shri Vaibhav Siroliya, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 18.06.2024 O R D E R

Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 40A(3)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY

Vijay Kumar Saini, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7, Jaipur

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

ITA 480/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh SoniFor Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh, Add. CIT a

Section 139Section 143(1)(a)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 56Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh

Mukta A2 Cinemas Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Central Processing Centre-Bengaluru, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is accordingly

ITA 1453/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jun 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Mr. Ankush Kapoor, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Mr. Dharmesh Shah

Section 154

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI SANDEEP

Shiksha Foundation, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-2 (Exemp), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 441/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Divyang Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Santosh Kumar, Sr. D.R

Section 11Section 119Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250

report was not filed by the assessee along with return of income. However, the said audit report was filed before the intimation under section 143 (1) of the Act was passed by the Department. The counsel for the assessee submitted that it was a pure procedural lapse and this fact ... file same before the due date of filing of return of income. However such audit report was filed before the order under section 143 (1) was passed by the Department. The counsel for the assessee relied on several judicial precedents in support of the contention that if the audit report

Chakkittapara Service Co-Op Bank Ltd, Calicut vs. ITO Ward 2(1), Calicut

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 160/COCH/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: Smt. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 154Section 250Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

assessee u/s 80P of the Act as the authority to make such assessment has been conferred on to the CPC vide insertion of section 143(1)(a)(v) of the Act w.e.f. 1.4.2021, which reads as follows: (v) disallowance of deduction claimed under [section 10AA or under

Moonak Welfare Society, Sangrur vs. ITO, Ward, Sunam

In the result, we direct the AO to allow the exemption u/s 11 to the assessee society

ITA 465/CHANDI/2023[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Jun 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A). 3.1 It Was Submitted During The Appellate Proceedings That The Cpc, Bangalore While Processing The Return Of Income Has Disallowed The Exemption On The Ground That Tax Audit Report In Form 10B Should Have Been Filed One Month Prior To The Filing

For Appellant: Shri Jaspal Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ved Parkash Kalia, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)(b)Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)

challenged the sustenance of denial of exemption under Section 11 of the Act, by AO/CPC while processing the return of income under section 143(1) of the Act. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee society is registered under Section ... filing of the return on 31/10/2022. The return of income so filed was processed by CPC, Bangalore and in the intimation issued under section 143(1) dated 03/03/2023, total income was determined at Rs. 10,77,300/- by disallowing the exemption claimed by the assessee society under Section

Gangol Sahkari Dugdh Utpadak Sangh Ltd., Meerut vs. ACIT Circle 1(1), Meerut

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 3837/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Anubhav Sharmaita Nos.3836 & 3837/Del/2023 Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2019-20 Gangol Sahkari Dugdh Vs. Ito, Ward 1(2), Utpadak Sangh Ltd., Meerut. 282-Boundary Road, Civil Line, Meerut (Up) Pin:250001 Pan : Aaaag0147K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 43B

order dated 10.03.2019 of learned Commissioner of Income-Tax(Appeals)/Addl/JCIT(A)-2, Jaipur (hereinafter referred as Ld. CIT(Appeals) passed under Section 143(1) of Income-Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’) by the ITO, Ward 1(2), Meerut (hereinafter referred as the Ld. AO). 2. Heard ... perused the record. 3. The issue in both the appeals arises out of the addition made during assessment under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act on the basis that EPF amount arising out of employees contribution was not deposited within the due date. 4. On hearing learned authorized representative

Gangol Sahkari Dugdh Utpadak Sangh Ltd., Meerut vs. ITO Ward-1(2), Meerut

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 3836/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 43B

Nrb Bearings Sevakachi Pat Sanstha, Jalna vs. Asst. Director of Income Tax CPC, CPC

Appeal is allowed

ITA 422/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Jun 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Mr. Piyush BafnaFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 80ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

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

Bijender Singh, Alipurduar vs. ITO, Ward-2(3), Alipurduar

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

ITA 447/KOL/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jun 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 445 To 447/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2019-20, 2021-22 & 2022-23 Bijender Singh Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates, Vs Alipurduar Advocates Siddha Gibson 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213 2Nd Floor Kolkata - 700069 [Pan : Dsnps3610C] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, Jcit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20/05/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate But Identical Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeal, Addl/Jcit(A)-10, Mumbai (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”), Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of 20 Days In Filing Of These Appeals. There Is A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Stating Therein, The Reasons For The Delay. On Perusal Of The Petition, We Are Convinced That The Assessee Was Prevented For Reasonable Cause From Filing This Appeal In Prescribed Time Limit. Accordingly, We

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, JCIT, Sr. D/R

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 249(2)Section 250Section 90

| आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "यायपीठ, कोलकाता | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE DR. MANISH BORAD, HON’BLE

Bijender Singh, Alipurduar vs. ITO, Ward-2(3), Alipurduar

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

ITA 446/KOL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jun 2024AY 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, JCIT, Sr. D/R

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 249(2)Section 250Section 90

| आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "यायपीठ, कोलकाता | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE DR. MANISH BORAD, HON’BLE

Bijender Singh, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-2(3), Alipurduar

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

ITA 445/KOL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jun 2024AY 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, JCIT, Sr. D/R

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 249(2)Section 250Section 90

| आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "यायपीठ, कोलकाता | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE DR. MANISH BORAD, HON’BLE