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)

Sebco Property Private Limited, Trichy vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central - 2, Chennai

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1592/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1592/Chny/2024 (िनधा'रणवष' / Assessment Year: 2016-17) M/S Sebco Property Private Limited Pcit (Central) बनाम/ 24D, Mahalakshmi Nagar, Chennai-2. Vs. K.K. Nagar, Trichy-620 021. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaocs-0810-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. Venkata Raman (Ca) - Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit) - Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23-01-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25-03-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. By Way Of This Appeal, The Assessee Assails Invocation Of Revisionary Jurisdiction U/S 263 By Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Chennai-2 (Pr.Cit) For Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17 Vide Impugned Order Dated 25-03-2024 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Ao U/S.153A R.W.S. 143(3) Of The Act On 31-03-2022. The Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are As Under: - 1. That The Revision Order Dated 25.03.2024 Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central - 2, Chennai ["Ld. Pcit"] U/S. 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ["Act"] Is Without Jurisdiction, Bad In Law & Barred By Limitation. 2. That The Assessment Order Dated 31.03.2022 Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S.143(3) R.W.S 153A Of The Act Was Neither Erroneous Nor Prejudicial To The Interests Of The Revenue, Thus The Ld. Pcit Erred In Initiating Revisionary Proceedings U/S.263 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri R. Venkata Raman (CA) - Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) - Ld. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

Shri Rohtash Monga, Ferozepur vs. Assistant Commisioner of Income Tax Circle, Ferozepur

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 286/ASR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Udayan Das Gupta & Shri Krinwant Sahay31Tw? 'Jnftct ^T./Ita No. 286/Asr/2023 Ptyfaui / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Rohtash Monga,' The Acit, Prop. Monga Jewellers, Circle, F.City, Punjab 152002 Ferozepur Wft^Felfh./Pan No: Adqpm0639Q Hitt^/'Respondent 3141 Cl L‘4F/ A P P E 11 A N T ( Hybridhearing ) 3F(T Tt/Assessee By : Shri P.N. Arora, Advocate 'Im'Wcftl 3{R ■$/ Revenue By : Mrs. Neelam Sharma, Sr.Dr ^Hcft^Dt^Wdate Of Hearing 27.12.2024 U 11 Cfrlctt'^Wdate Of Pronouncement 3Ft‘I^T/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, Am: Appeal In This Case Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 16.09.2023Passed By Id. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac). Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: - 2. That Whether The Worthy Cit(A). Nfac Is Right In Confirming 1. The Penalty Levied U/S 271-D For A.Y. 2017-2018 Passed On Dt. 16.9.2023 Which Was Not Initiated With The Assessment Order Passed 30.11.2019 By Ao, Range-1. Ferozepur Keeping In View The Letter Of Offer Surrender Dt. 8.11.2011 In Which It Is Written That Surrender Is Subject To No Penal Action Against The Assessee, Which Was Accepted By The Survey Party As Veil As The A.O. Who Framed The Assessment For A. O. 17-18, If Wrong, Then The Penult Orders May Kindly Be Quashed. \

For Appellant: Shri P.N. Arora, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Neelam Sharma, Sr.DR
Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 269SSection 271Section 271A

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Chandigarh vs. Glaxosmithkline Asia Pvt Ltd, Gurgaon

The appeal stand dismissed

ITA 346/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.346/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Dcit M/S Glaxosmithkline Asia Private Ltd. 10Th Floor, Sector 43, Dlf Phase V बनाम/ Chandigarh – 160017 One Horizon Centre, Golf Course Road Vs. Gurgaon-122002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcs-3237-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Ajay Vohra (Sr. Advocate) Along With Shri Neeraj Jain (Advocate) & Ms. Somya Jain (Ca) – Ld. Ars ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Rohit Sharma (Cit) – Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05-03-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24-03-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Revenue For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Addl. / Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Coimbatore [Cit(A)] Dated 09-02-2024 In The Matter Of An Order Passed By Ld. Ao On 13-09-2023. Having Heard Rival Submissions & Upon Perusal Of Case Records, The Appeal Is Disposed- Off As Under.

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra (Sr. Advocate) along with ShriFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma (CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 143(1)Section 43B