← 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)

Ask Wealth Advisors Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 6(1)(2)., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1904/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1904/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Ask Wealth Advisors Pvt. बिधम/ Dcit, Circle-6(1)(2) Ltd. Aaykar Bhavan, Mumbai- Vs. Birla Aurora, 16 Level, 400020. Office Floor 9, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai-400030. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aafca9124M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Shreyam B. Shah Revenue By: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 21/08/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 20/09/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Cit(A)], Delhi Dated 11.06.2022 For Ay. 2018-19. 2. This Is Second Round Before This Tribunal. It Is Noted That This Captioned Appeal Of Assessee Was Partly Allowed In The First Round By This Tribunal Vide Order Dated 30.09.2022. However, The Same Has Been Recalled In Ma No. 298/Mum/2023 In The Light Of The Hon’Ble Supreme Court Decision In The Case Of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cit (448 Itr 518). Therefore, This Appeal Is Adjudicated Afresh. The Main Grievance Of Assessee Is Against The Action Of Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Disallowance Of Employee’S Contribution Made Towards Pf/Esi To The Tune Of Rs.12,18,871/-.

For Appellant: Shri Shreyam B. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha (Sr. AR)
Section 10ASection 139Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2Section 36(1)(va)

Supreme Court decision in the case of Checkmate (supra) adjustment made by CPC u/s 143(1) of the Act is valid or not? Section 143(1)(a) of the Act provides for following adjustment: - “i) any arithmetical error in the return; ii). An incorrect claim, if such incorrect claim ... been made within the due date. 6. Accordingly, we hold that such an adjustment is permissible while processing the return under section 143(1) of the Act. And since assessee’s case was not that it had deposited the employee’s contribution in the relevant funds within the due date

Bang Overseas Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, Cir-2(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1889/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Bang Overseas Ltd, Mumbai. Dcit, Cir-2 (1) (1), Mumbai. Room No.561, 5Th Floor, Aayakar 16, Masjid Manor, Homi Modi Street, Vs. Fort, Mumbai-400 023 Bhavan , M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aabcb2777M (Appellant) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dharan Gandhi : Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha- Revenue By Sr.Ar. : 05.09.2023 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 14.09.2023 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee, Challenging The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (‘Ld.Cit(A) For Short), Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act'), Pertaining To The Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ For Short) 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Has Challenged The Order Of Cit(A) On The Ground Ld.Cit(A) Has Failed To Condone The Delay In Filing The Appeal Before The First Appellate Authority & Had Not Given Sufficient Opportunity Of Hearing. The Assessee Has Also Challenged The Disallowance Of Rs. 17,51,249/- U/S. 36 (1)(Va) Of The Act, Towards Employees Contribution To Pf & Esic Deposited After The Due Date Prescribed Under The Relevant Act

For Appellant: Shri Dharan Gandhi
Section 115Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM Bang