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)

Nam Group Aslali, Ahmedabad vs. AO, CPC, Bangalore-Present -the ITO, Ward-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

ITA 1611/AHD/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jan 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.1610/Ahd/2024 & 1611/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2022-23 & 2023-24 Respectively Nam Group Aslali The Ao, Cpc बनाम/ 172/1, Premchand House Bangalore - V/S. Old High Court Way Present Ito Ashram Road Ward-3(1)(1) Ahmedabad Ahmedabad "थायी लेखा सं./Pan:Aaaan 0551 C (अपीलाथ%/ Appellant) (&' यथ%/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.F. Jain, Ar Revenue By : Shri B.P. Srivastav, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/01/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: Both The Appeals, Filed By The Assessee Pertain To Assessment Years (Ays) 2022-23 & 2023-24 & Arise From The Orders Passed By The Office Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeal, Addl/Jcit-10 Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”] In Upholding The Levy Of Surcharge At The Maximum Marginal Rate Under Section 167B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”]. The Levy Of Surcharge Was Determined Pursuant To Intimations Issued By The Cpc, Bengaluru Under Section 143(1) Of The Act. Since The Facts & Grounds Of Appeal For Both Years Are Identical

For Appellant: Shri P.F. Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.P. Srivastav, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 167BSection 167B(2)Section 26Section 67ASection 86

Nam Group Aslali, Ahmedabad vs. AO, CPC, Bangalore- Present ITO. Ward-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

ITA 1610/AHD/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jan 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.1610/Ahd/2024 & 1611/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2022-23 & 2023-24 Respectively Nam Group Aslali The Ao, Cpc बनाम/ 172/1, Premchand House Bangalore - V/S. Old High Court Way Present Ito Ashram Road Ward-3(1)(1) Ahmedabad Ahmedabad "थायी लेखा सं./Pan:Aaaan 0551 C (अपीलाथ%/ Appellant) (&' यथ%/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.F. Jain, Ar Revenue By : Shri B.P. Srivastav, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/01/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: Both The Appeals, Filed By The Assessee Pertain To Assessment Years (Ays) 2022-23 & 2023-24 & Arise From The Orders Passed By The Office Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeal, Addl/Jcit-10 Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”] In Upholding The Levy Of Surcharge At The Maximum Marginal Rate Under Section 167B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”]. The Levy Of Surcharge Was Determined Pursuant To Intimations Issued By The Cpc, Bengaluru Under Section 143(1) Of The Act. Since The Facts & Grounds Of Appeal For Both Years Are Identical

For Appellant: Shri P.F. Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.P. Srivastav, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 167BSection 167B(2)Section 26Section 67ASection 86

Link Commercial Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 1(4), Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1368/KOL/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Jan 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.1368/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Link Commercial Pvt. Ltd...………........………………....Appellant C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocate Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata – 700069. [Pan: Aabcl4354L] Vs. Ito, Ward-1(4), Kolkata…….……….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Pradip Biswas, Addl. Cit- Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 30, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 28, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 10.06.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Pertaining To Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. In This Appeal, The Assessee Challenged The Validity Of Reopening Proceedings U/S 147/148 Of The Act & The Addition Of Rs.2,02,00,000/- Made U/S 68 Of The Act As Unexplained Cash Credit. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 30.03.2012 By Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.35,061/-. The Return Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Act. Subsequent To That, The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened U/S 147 Of The Act & A Notice U/S 148 Of The Act Was Issued On 31.03.2018 After Obtaining Prior Approval

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

Dalmia Dsp Limited (Formerly Known As Kalyanpur Cements Limited), Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 5(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 54/KOL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Jan 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.54/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dalmia Dsp Ltd………………..………........………………....Appellant 2&3, Lic Building, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Sarani, (Clive Row), Kolkata-1. [Pan: Aabck1273H] Vs. Dcit, Circle-5(1), Kolkata…….……….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Navin Verma, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Subhendu Datta, Cit- Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 11, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 28, 2024 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 13.11.2018 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Pertaining To Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Company Filed Its Return Of Income On 25.09.2010 By Declaring A Total Loss Of Rs.63,97,05,090/-. The Return Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Act. Subseqeuntly, The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny & A Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Act Was Issued & Assessment Order Was Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 24.01.2013 Determining A Total Loss Of Rs.60,17,78,201/-. Later On, The Case Was Reviewed U/S 263 Of The Act Considering The Assessment Order Dated 24.01.2013 As It Was Found Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue As Per Order Dated 30.03.2015 U/S 263 Of The Act Setting Aside The File To The Assessing

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 43B