← 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)

Rcs Associates Charitable Trust, Shimla vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemption), Solan

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 759/CHANDI/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 Jan 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.759/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2023-24) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.769/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2024-25) Rcs Associates Charitable Trust Ito Exemption 74/1, Lower Bazar, Shimla Income Tax Office बनाम/ Vs. Himachal Pradesh - 171001 New Bypass Road, Kathed, Solan (Hp) - 173208 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Aabtr-8127-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Vishal Mohan (Sr. Advocate) A/W Sh. Praveen Sharma (Advocate) – Ld. Ars (Virtual Mode) ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23-12-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 06-01-2026 : आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. The Assessee Is In Further Appeal Before Us For Assessment Years (Ay) 2023-24 & 2024-25. First, We Take Up Appeal For Ay 2023-24 Which Arises Out Of An Order Ld. Addl. Cit / Joint Cit (Appeals)-9, Mumbai [Cit(A)] Dated 26-03-2025 In The Matter Of An Intimation Issued

For Appellant: Sh. Vishal Mohan (Sr. Advocate) a/w Sh. PraveenFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 11Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, CHANDIGARH HYBRID HEARING BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JM AND

Nayana Digant Kapadia, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, 20(2)(1), Mumbai, Piramal Chambers

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

ITA 3173/MUM/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18 Nayana Digant Kapadia Income Tax Officer, 152, Ramanuj, 20(2)(1), Mumbai Road No.9, Wadala, Vs. Mumbai – 400 031 (Pan : Aabpk8446R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Satish Mody, Ca Revenue : Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.01.2026 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Addl /Jcit (A)-3 Delhi Vide Itba/Apl/S/250/2024-25/1074687488(1), Dated 19.03.2025 Passed Against The Intimation Issued By Centralized Processing Center (Cpc), Bengaluru, U/S. 143(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 30.11.2019 For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: “1. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-32 Erred In Confirming The Order Made U/S 143(1) Dt 30/11/2019 Wherein The Interest Income Of Rs 26,49,581/- From Dlk Commercial Pvt Ltd Was Added As Income Of The Appellant On Accrual Basis Inspite Of The Fact That The Appellant U/S 145 Of The Income Tax

For Appellant: Shri Satish Mody, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 145

subsequent years in proceedings before us. Accordingly, there was no error in the revised return of income requiring adjustment/addition in terms of Section 143(1) of the Act. Accordingly, we delete the addition of INR.15,48,775/-. Ground No. 1 raised by the Appellant is allowed

Lakhi Ram, Gurugram vs. ITO Ward 1(4) Gurgaon, Gurugram

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2028/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Amitabh Shuklaita No. 2028/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year: 2019-20 Lakhi Ram, Vs Income Tax Officer, House No. 70, Village- Dhanwapur, Ward-1(4), Daultabad, Gurugram, Gurugram, Haryana-122001 Haryana-122001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Awzpr6814L Assessee By : None Revenue By : Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 05.01.2026 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2019-20 Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1061566876(1) Dated 27.02.2024, In Proceedings U/S 144 R.W.S. 142(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. DR
Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)

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