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)

Kamal Sharma, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-II, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1218/DEL/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Nov 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareekkamal Sharma, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle Ii, Village Bakoli, Faridabad. Delhi – 415 112. (Pan : Awsps7332M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ved Jain, Advocate Shri Aman Garg, Ca Revenue By : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.09.2024 Date Of Order : 14.11.2024 Order Per S.Rifaur Rahman,Am: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Appeals-3, Gurgaon (Hereinafter Referred To ‘Ld. Cit (A)’) Dated 27.02.2023 For Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. At The Time Of Hearing, Ld. Ar For The Assessee Submitted That Search Was Conducted In The Case Of Sunstar Group On 19.12.2013. Based On The Material Found, Notice Under Section 153C Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’) Was Issued On 20.01.2016. He Submitted That The 2 Deemed Search For The Purpose Of Section 153C Is Ay 2016-17. Assessing Officer Has Issued Notice U/S 153C To Ays Falling Within Six Assessment Years Immediately Preceding Assessment Year Relevant To The Previous Year In Which Search Was Conducted. He Submitted That Notices U/S 153C Was Issued On 20.01.2016 To The Assessee. It Shows That Satisfaction Was Recorded By The Assessing Officer Of The Assessee In The Ay 2016-17, Therefore, As Per The Provisions Of Section 153C, Six Years Prior To The Searched Assessment Year In This Case Is Ay 2016-17 Covers The Period I.E. Ays 2010-11 To 2015-16. Since The Assessment Proceedings Were Initiated For Impugned Ay 2009-10 Is Beyond Jurisdiction. He Submitted That The Issue Under Consideration Is Well Settled & In This Regard, He Relied On The Following Decisions :- (I) Itta Delhi In The Case Of M/S. Marconi Infratech (P) Ltd. Vs. Acit, Cc-11, Faridabad – 2024 (7) Timi 129 Dated 21.06.2024; (Ii)

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT DR
Section 153C