Section 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.270

Section 143(1)(a) falls under section 143 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which corresponds to section 270 (Assessment) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 270 of the 2025 Act

Correspondence checked against the ICAI tabular mapping of the two Acts and the BharatTax.co section commentary.

The decision most relied on for Section 143(1)(a) is CIT v. AIMIL Ltd. (321 ITR 508), cited in 1,629 of the 1,112 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 143(1)(a)

CIT v. AIMIL Ltd.
321 ITR 508 · 2010 · High Court
1,629
citing judgments

Employee contributions to PF and ESIC, deposited beyond the due date under the respective Acts but within the due date for filing the income tax return under Section 139(1), are allowable deductions under Section 36(1)(va). Such disallowance cannot be made during processing under Section 143(1).

CIT v. Alom Extrusions Ltd.
319 ITR 306 · 2009 · Supreme Court
1,344
citing judgments

A proviso inserted into a section to remedy unintended consequences, make the section workable, or supply an obvious omission must be read retrospectively in operation to give effect to the section as a whole.

279 ITR 331/149 Taxman 15 (Guj.); 5. CIT v. Sabari Enterprises
298 ITR 141 · 2008 · High Court
706
citing judgments

Employee contributions to provident fund or ESI, even if deposited after the due date specified in the respective welfare statutes, are allowable as a deduction under Section 36(1)(va) if paid before the due date for filing the income-tax return. This judgment aligns the treatment of employee contributions with employer contributions under Section 43B.

Essae Teraoka Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT
366 ITR 408 · 2014 · High Court
519
citing judgments

An employer's delayed remittance of employees' contributions to provident fund (PF) or Employees' State Insurance (ESI) is deductible if the payment is made before the due date for filing the income tax return under section 139(1), applying the provisions of section 43B and notwithstanding section 36(1)(va).

CIT v. Vinay Cements Ltd.
213 CTR 268 · 2007 · Supreme Court
422
citing judgments

Employees' contributions to provident fund and ESI are allowable as a deduction under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) if deposited by the assessee before the due date for filing the income tax return.

Commissioner of Income-Tax, Udaipur v. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sandh Ltd.
35 Taxmann.com 616 · 2013 · High Court
304
citing judgments

No disallowance can be made under Section 36(1)(va) or Section 43B for delayed payment of employee's contributions to ESI or PF if these amounts are deposited by the assessee on or before the due date for filing the return of income under Section 139(1). This aligns the treatment of employee contributions with employer contributions for allowability.

319 ITR 306 (SC); CIT v. Vinay Cement Ltd.
84 Taxmann.com 185 · 2017 · Supreme Court
300
citing judgments

Employee and employer contributions towards Provident Fund (PF) and Employees' State Insurance (ESI) are allowable deductions under sections 36(1)(va) and 43B, respectively, if deposited on or before the due date for filing the return of income under section 139(1), even if paid after the due date prescribed under the respective welfare legislation.

M/s Mahadev Cold Storage v. Jurisdictional AO
43 Taxmann.com 33 · 2014 · High Court
262
citing judgments

Employees' contributions to welfare funds are an allowable deduction if paid before the due date for filing the income-tax return under section 139(1), even if the payment is made beyond the due date specified by the respective welfare fund Acts, as per the provisions of section 43B.

313 ITR 137 (Bom.); 7. Spectrum Consultants India (P.) Ltd. v. CIT
34 Taxmann.com 20 · 2013 · High Court
228
citing judgments
616 (Raj.) and 9. CIT v. Hemla Embroidery Mills (P) Ltd.
217 Taxmann 207 · 2013 · High Court
170
citing judgments

Prior to the insertion of Explanation 2 to Section 36(1)(va) of the Income-tax Act, there was an ambiguity regarding the due date for payment of employees' contribution to provident fund and ESI. The ambiguity was whether the due date was as per the respective Acts or the due date for filing the assessee's return of income.

Judgments on Section 143(1)(a)

Ummeed Foundation, Vadodara vs. The ITO, Ward 3(1)(2), Vadodara

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

ITA 2084/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Tr Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Years: 2020-21

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

Ramani Mathuraprasad Mishra, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 22(3)(6), Mumbai

ITA 7543/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Naimish JoshiFor Respondent: Date
Section 143(1)(a)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 56(2)(vii)

Bhartiya Aadarsh Shikshan Samiti, Mandsaur vs. DCIT (Exemption), Bhopal

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose, subject

ITA 612/IND/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(2)Section 139Section 139(4)Section 143(1)

Sonmrug Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd, Pedder Road vs. CIT(Appeal), Mumbai

ITA 2794/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 143(1)Section 249(2)Section 250Section 80P

Nmdc Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT Circle 5(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1523/HYD/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Feb 2026AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1523/Hyd./2025 Assessment Year 2024-2025 Nmdc Limited, The Dcit, Hyderabad – 500028. Vs. Circle-5(1), Pan Aaacn7325A Hyderabad. Telangana. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca Darshan Jakharia राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 16.02.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 18.02.2026 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: CA Darshan JakhariaFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)(a)Section 43B

Aptara Technologies Private Limited, Pune vs. DCIT, Circle1(1), Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 63/PUN/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwallaFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 115Section 115QSection 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 32

Rns Power Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Ward-5(1)(1), Bengaluru

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1421/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Prasanna Urala, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115JSection 119Section 139Section 143Section 270ASection 80

Nileshkumar Kantilal Modi, Ankhleshwar vs. Income Tax Officer, Bharuch

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 532/SRT/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Surat16 Feb 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice- & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Kumar, Sr. D.R
Section 143(1)(a)

Nileshkumar Kantilal Modi, Ankleshwar vs. Income Tax Officer, Bharuch

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 530/SRT/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat16 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice- & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Kumar, Sr. D.R
Section 143(1)(a)

Sahakar Bhushan Vasant Sarva Seva Sahakari Society Ltd, Sangli vs. ITO Ward-1, Sangli

ITA 350/PUN/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.350/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2022-23 Sahakar Bhushan Vasant Sarva Vs. Income Tax Officer, Seva Sahakari Society Ltd., Ward-1, Sangli Shinde Chowk, Mhaisal, Vijay Nagar, Mhaisal S.O., Sangli – 416409, Maharashtra Pan : Aaaav2175L Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: (Through Virtual)
Section 119(2)(b)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 80ASection 80P

Parijat Hotel Private Limited, Pune vs. ITO, Ward-4(5), Pune

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

ITA 2383/PUN/2025[2021-22]Status: HeardITAT Pune16 Feb 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2383/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2021-22 Parijat Hotels Private Limited, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 9, Jaiprakash Narayan Garden, Ward-4(5), Pune Pune Station, Pune – 411001 Maharashtra Pan : Aabcp1231A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri S.N. PuranikFor Respondent: Shri Pramod Shahakar
Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 43B

DCIT-2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Dbs Bank India Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 6246/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokardcit-2(3)(1) Dbs Bank India Limited Room No. 552, 5Th Floor, 1St Floor, Express Towers, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aagcd 5838 A (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Fenil Bhatt Respondent By : Shri Annavram Kosuri Date Of Hearing : 10.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.02.2026 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: Captioned Appeal By The Department, Arises Out Of Order Dated 08.07.2025 Of Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax (Addl. Cit For Short), Kolkata, Pertaining To Assessment Year (A.Y. For Short) 2021-22. 2. Substantive Grounds Raised By The Department Are As Under: 1. "Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld.Cit(A) Is Correct In Holding The Power In Quashing The Adjustment Made U/S 143(1)(A) Of The Act Merely On The Ground That Prior Intimation For Adjustment Was Not Given To The Assessee. In Doing The Ld.Cit(A) Failed To Appreciate That The Intimation Could Not Have Been Quashed Merely On A Procedural Irregularity?" 2. "Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld.Cit(A) Is Correct In Quashing The Adjustment Made U/S 143(1)(A) Of The Act, Disregarding The Fact That The Consequential Grounds No. 2 To 6 Were Adjudicated On Merits, Thus, Adjudication In Ground No 1 Becomes Contradictory To The Adjudication In Ground No. 2 To 6 & Resulting In Deletion Of Adjustment Of Rs. 2,88,06,410/-?" 3. As Could Be Seen From The Grounds Raised, The Grievance Of The Department Is With Regard To Deletion Of Adjustment Made Of Rs.2,88,06,410/- By The Centralized Processing

For Appellant: Shri Fenil BhattFor Respondent: Shri Annavram Kosuri
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

Dagadudhondu Yeola Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Satana vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Nashik

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as per the terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 2326/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2326/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19 Dagadudhondu Yeola Nagari Vs. Income Tax Officer, Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Ward-1(1), Nashik At Post Satana, Nashik 423 301 Maharashtra Pan : Aabad2549P Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev MuthaFor Respondent: Shri Eknath Abhang
Section 10ASection 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 250Section 80P

M/S. Rallis India Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, 8(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed as indicated above

ITA 7688/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarm/S. Rallis India Limited Dy. Cit, Circle 8(1)(1) Room No. 624, 6Th Floor, C/O. Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp, 2Nd Floor, Esplanade House, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Vs. 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Mumbai-400 020 Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Pan/Gir No. Aabcr 2657 N (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Percy J Pardiwalla & Shri Jeet Kamdar Respondent By : Shri Umashankar Prasad Date Of Hearing : 09.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.02.2026 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: Captioned Appeal By The Assessee Arises Out Of The Order Dated 27.09.2025, Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short), Delhi For The Assessment Year (A.Y. For Short) 2022-23. 2. Though, The Assessee Has Raised Multiple Grounds, However, The Core Issue Arising In Appeal Relates To Addition Of An Amount Of Rs.1284.66 Crores On Account Of Adjustments Under Income Computation & Disclosure Standards (‘Icds’ For Short).

For Appellant: Shri Percy J Pardiwalla and Shri Jeet KamdarFor Respondent: Shri Umashankar Prasad
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154

Ambika Co-Operative Housing Society Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 24(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 5458/MUM/2025[A.Y.2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Feb 2026

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai ()

Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 234BSection 234CSection 57Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

Jayesh Darbi Collection, Solapur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Solapur

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

ITA 769/PUN/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Madhan Thirmanpalli
Section 143Section 143(1)

Gsj Telecom Private Limited, Shillong vs. Assitant Commissioner of Income Tax, Shillong

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

ITA 239/GTY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati03 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

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

Fdcm Karmachari Sahaka, Chandrapur vs. ITO Ward-2, Chandrapur

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 313/NAG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur03 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad

For Appellant: Shri Mohammed Lakkadsha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 80ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

Fule Shahu Ambedkar Z P Karmachari Sah Pat Sanstha, Washim vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-2, Akola

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 68/NAG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur03 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 80ASection 80P

Rohit Kumar, Income Tax Officer, Ward-12(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. the United Provinces Sugar Company Pvt Ltd, Kolkata

ITA 1130/KOL/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Feb 2026AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2024-25 Ito, Ward-12(1), Kolkata…..……..……….………….……….……….……Appellant Vs. M/S The United Provinces Sugar Company Pvt. Ltd.…….....……...…..…..Respondent 1St Floor, Chartered Bank Building, 4, Netaji Subhash Road, Kol-1. [Pan: Aaact4947L] Appearances By: Shri S B Chakraborthy, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri J P Khaitan, Sr. Counsel, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 20, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 03, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.03.2025 Of The Addl/Jcit(A)-9, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2024–25. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That During The Year Under Consideration, The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 11.10.2024 Claiming A Refund Of Rs.15,61,200/- Pursuant To Set-Off Of Brought Forward Business Loss Against The Returned Income. Intimation Order U/S. 143(1) Of The Act Was Directly Passed On 01.11.2024, Assessing A Refund Of Rs.16,22,410/- & Allowing Setoff Of Brought Forward Loss Against Income As Done In The Return Of Income. However, The Order Did Not Capture The Schedule Of Carry Forward Business Loss & Unabsorbed Depreciation For Earlier Years. M/S The United Provinces Sugar Company Pvt. Ltd 3. Aggrieved By The Above Order, The Assessee Filed Appeal Before The Ld. Cit(A) Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Allowed The Appeal Of The Assessee By Observing As Under:

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