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)

Sri Jagadguru Shivanand Human Welfare Association, Gadag vs. Income Tax Officer, (Exemptions), Ward-1, Hubbali

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

ITA 1732/BANG/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Oct 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S. & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavsri Jagadguru Shivanand Ito (Exemption), Ward-1 Human Welfre Association C.R. Building, Navanagar Vs. Gadag 582103, Karnataka Hubli 580025 Pan – Aagas0911F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Kashinath Kalamath, Advocate Revenue By: Ms. Neha Sahay, Ld. Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.10.2024 O R D E R Per: Padmavathy S., A.M. This Appeal By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Prayagraj [Cit(A)] Dated 20.08.2024 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2022-23. 2. The Assessee Is A Charitable Trust & Obtained Registration U/S. 12 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act). The Assessee Filed Return Of Income For Ay 2022-23 On 06.11.2022 Declaring Nil Income. The Return Was Processed U/S. 143(1) Of The Act By The Cpc In Which The Entire Gross Receipts Of Rs. 50,67,850/- Claimed By The Assessee As Exempt U/S. 11 Of The Act Was Disallowed. The Reason For The Denial Of Benefit U/S. 11 Was That The Assessee Did Not File Form 10B Within The Time Limit Prescribed. On Further Appeal The Ld. Cit(A) Upheld The Disallowance Stating That The Cit(A) Does Not Have The 2 Sri Jagadguru Shivanand Human Welfre Association Power To Condone The Delay In Filing From 10B. The Assessee Is In Appeal Before The Tribunal Against The Order Of The Cit(A).

For Appellant: Shri Kashinath Kalamath, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, Ld. JCIT-DR
Section 11Section 12Section 143(1)