Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.270

Section 143(1) 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) is Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji (167 ITR 471), cited in 3,926 of the 12,311 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 143(1)

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.

Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT
284 ITR 323 · 2006 · Supreme Court
1,842
citing judgments

An assessee cannot raise a new claim or a claim not made in the original or revised return of income for the first time directly before the Assessing Officer during assessment proceedings.

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. Vatika Township Pvt. Ltd.
367 ITR 466 · 2014 · Supreme Court
1,558
citing judgments

Taxing statutes are presumed to operate prospectively unless a clear contrary intention for retrospective application is evident. The law applicable for determining tax liability is that which stands on the first day of the assessment year, following the principle that law looks forward, not backward (lex prospicit non respicit).

Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT
143 Taxmann.com 178 · 2022 · Supreme Court
1,392
citing judgments

Employee contributions to provident fund and ESI deposited by an employer beyond the due dates prescribed under the respective special Acts are not allowable as a deduction under section 36(1)(va) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Such disallowance can 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.

ACIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd.
291 ITR 500 · 2007 · Supreme Court
1,030
citing judgments

For initiating reassessment proceedings under Section 147, the Assessing Officer needs only prima facie material providing a reason to believe that income has escaped assessment. Conclusive proof or the sufficiency/correctness of the material is not required at the stage of issuing the notice under Section 148.

CIT v. Sun Engineering Works (P) Ltd.
198 ITR 297 · 1992 · Supreme Court
814
citing judgments

A court's pronouncement derives its scope and color from the specific questions involved in the case, thus, due regard must always be given to the questions framed before the court when interpreting its judgment.

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr. v. Totagars Cooperative Sale Society
392 ITR 74 · 2017 · High Court
762
citing judgments

Interest income earned by a cooperative society from its investments or surplus deposits with a cooperative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

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.

Judgments on Section 143(1)

Jai Kankaria Foundation, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Exempt, Kolkata

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

ITA 2146/KOL/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Nov 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishraआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.2146/Kol/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2019-2020) Jai Kankaria Foundation Vs Cpc, Bangalore/ 5, Middleton Street, Kolkata Ito Ward-1(1), Exempt, Kolkata Pan No. :Aaatj 2147 F (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By Shri Soumitra Choudhury & Shri Pranobesh Sarkar, Advocates रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Sandeep Kumar Mehta, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 24/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24/11/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per George Mathan, Jm : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Addl/Cit(A)-7, Delhi, Dated 14.07.2025 For The Assessment Year 2019-2020 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Appeal Of The Assessee Has Been Dismissed By The Ld.Cit(A) On Account Of Delay Of 28 Days. In This Regard, Ld. Ar Drew Our Attention To The Judgment Of The Hon’Ble Supreme Court In Miscellaneous Application No.21 Of 2022 In Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.3 Of 2020, Dated 10.01.2022, Wherein The Hon’Ble Supreme Court Has Directed To Exclude The Period Of Limitation For The Period As Mentioned In The Said Judgment On Account Of Covid-19. The Relevant Observations Of The Hon’Ble Supreme Court Are As Under :- 4. The Present Miscellaneous Application Has Been Filed By The Supreme Court Advocates-On-Record Association In The Context Of The Spread Of The New Variant Of The Covid-19 & The Drastic Surge In The Number Of Covid Cases Across The Country. Considering The Prevailing Conditions, The Applicants Are Seeking The Following:

For Respondent: Shri Sandeep Kumar Mehta, Sr. DR
Section 12ASection 138Section 143(1)

Takdah Lingding G P S K U S Limited, Takdah, Darjeeling vs. I.T.O., Ward - 3(3), Darjeeling

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 753/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Nov 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri Rajesh Kumartakdah Lingding Gpskus Ltd, Vs Ito, Ward-3(3), Darjeeling 1, Takdah, Village-Takdah, Darjeeling, West Bengal-734222 Pan No. : Aadat 6301 M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Ms. Promita Majumdar, Ar राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.B.Chakrabrthy, Addl.Cit-Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 13/10/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21/11/2025 आदेश / O R D E R The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Addl/Jcit(A)-4, Chennai, Dated 24.02.2025 Passed For Assessment Year 2018-2019. 2. The Only Issue In The Present Appeal Is With Regard To Disallowance Of Deduction Claimed U/S.80P Of The Act. 3. Ld. Ar Submitted That The Assessee Is A Cooperative Society Registered Under The West Bengal Cooperative Societies Act. The Assessee Had Filed Its Return Of Income For The Impugned Assessment Year On 05.10.2018 Declaring Nill Income & Claimed Deduction U/S.80P Of The Act To An Extent Of Rs.13,58,174/-. It Was The Submission That The Return Of Income Filed By The Assessee Was Processed & Intimation U/S.143(1) Of The Act Was Issued Without Granting The Assessee Benefit Of Deduction U/S.80P Of The Act. Ld. Ar Further Submitted That The Ld. Addl/Jcit(A) Failed To Appreciate That The Due Date Of Filing Of The Return U/S.13(1) Of The Act For 2

For Appellant: Ms. Promita Majumdar, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.B.Chakrabrthy, Addl.CIT-Sr.DR
Section 119Section 13(1)Section 143(1)Section 80PSection 850P

Agarwal Maheswari & Co., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 22(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 1753/KOL/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Nov 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1753/Kol/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2020-2021) Agarwal Maheswari & Co, Vs Ito Ward-22(2), Kolkata 5Th Floor, Room No.504, 6 Waterloo Street, Dalhousie, Kolkata-700069 Pan No. :Aadfa 8690 B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Ms. Vijeta Untwalia Agarwal, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Mrinmay Basak, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 18/11/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21/11/2025 आदेश / O R D E R The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Add/Jcit(A), Ranchi, Dated 13.06.2025 Passed For Assessment Year 2020-2021. 2. Ld. Ar Submitted That The Intimation Issued U/S.143(1) Of The Act Has Been Issued Making Adjustment Without Issuing An Intimation To The Assessee Either Communicated Or Through Electronic Means. It Was The Submission That The Intimation Issued U/S.143(1) Of The Act Is Liable To Be Quashed. 3. On The Other Hand, Ld. Sr.Dr Submitted That He Has No Objection If The Issues In This Appeal Be Restored To The File Of Ld.Ao For Readjudication. 4. I Have Considered The Rival Submissions. As It Is Noticed That The Assessee Has Not Been Heard Nor Any Show Cause Has Been Issued To The Assessee Before Issuing The Intimation U/S.143(1), I Am Of The View That The Issue In This Appeal Must Be Restored To The File Of Ld. Ao For 2 Readjudication Afresh & I Do So. Needless To Say, The Assessee Shall Be Afforded Sufficient Opportunity Of Hearing. At The Same Breath, I Also Hereby Caution The Assessee To Promptly Co-Operate With The Proceedings

For Appellant: Ms. Vijeta Untwalia Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Mrinmay Basak, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)