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)

M/S. Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd., Vadodara vs. The ADIT, CPC, Bangalore Present Juridiction the Dy. CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 69/AHD/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Jul 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 69/Ahd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20) िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" M/S. Checkmate Adit, Cpc, बनाम बनाम/ बनाम बनाम Services Pvt. Ltd. Bangalore Vs. G.F 6-9, Amaan Tower & Suvas Colony, Fatehgunj, Dy.Cit Vadodara, Gujarat, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara 390002 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacc8465A (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri M. R. Sahu, Ar अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, Cit. Dr 12/07/2024 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 16/07/2024 O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, (In Short ‘The Cit(A)’) Dated 08.12.2022 For The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Had Filed Its Return Of Income For A.Y. 2019-20 On 30.09.2019 Declaring Total

For Respondent: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

Trident Academy of Creative Technology, Bhubaneswar vs. CIT(Exemptions), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 209/CTK/2023[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack15 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalassessment Year : 2018-19 Trident Academy Of Creative Trident Academy Of Creative Vs. Cit (Exemption), Cit (Exemption), Technology, Technology, A A-127, Hyderabad Hyderabad Sahidnagar, Bhubaneswar Sahidnagar, Bhubaneswar Pan/Gir No Pan/Gir No.Aabtt 0273 H (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.C.Sethi, Adv Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit Sanjay Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 15/0 07/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 15/0 /07/2024 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Ord This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Ord This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(Exemption), Hyderabad Cit(Exemption), Hyderabad Dated 29.3.2023 Passed Under Section 263 Of 29.3.2023 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Act In Appeal No,Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2022 The Act In Appeal No,Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2022-23/1051543667(1) 23/1051543667(1) For The Assessment Year Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Shri P.C.Sethi, P.C.Sethi, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri The Assessee & Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit Dr Appeared For The Revenue. Dr Appeared For The Revenue.

For Appellant: Shri P.C.SethiFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT
Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

The Muzaffarpur Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd, Muzaffarpur vs. ACIT, Circle-2, Muzaffarpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 224/PAT/2019[2009-10]Status: HeardITAT Patna11 Jul 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.224/Pat/2019 Assessment Year: 2009-10 The Muzaffarpur Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd....…...……………....Appellant Sadar Hospital Road, Muzaffarpur, Bihar – 842001. [Pan: Aabat7831Q] Vs. Acit, Circle-2, Muzaffarpur….................................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sanjeev Kr. Anwar, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sushil Kr. Mishra, Jcit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 28, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 11, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 30.07.2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income (Appeal), Muzzafarpur [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Though The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken As Many As Six Grounds Of Appeal, However, The Sole Issue Raised By The Assessee In This Appeal Is Relating To The Validity Of The Reopening Of The Assessment. 3. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Cooperative Bank & Derives Income From Banking Business. The Assessing Officer Noted That The Assessee Had Not Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2009-10 Despite Having Taxable Income. He, Therefore

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 36(1)(viia)