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)

Ratnam Jute Pvt Ltd, Rajam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Srikakulam

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in I

ITA 212/VIZ/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam29 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.212/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15) Ratnam Jute (P) Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.2-1, Palakonda Road, Ward-3 Rajam, Srikakulam Srikakulam [Pan : Aabcr4024P] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Madhukar Aves, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 23.08.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 29.08.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi In Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1053339971(1), Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) U/S 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “Act”) Dated 06.12.2016 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2014-15. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, A Private Limited Company, Doing Business In Trading Of Raw Jute In The Name & Style Of 2

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri Madhukar Aves, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

Karthikeyan Sanjeevi Raja Sujjur, Chennai vs. ITO, Non-Corporate Ward1(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeals stand dismissed

ITA 852/CHNY/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Aug 2023AY 2021-22

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.852/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) Shri Karthikeyan Sanjeevi Raja Sujjur Ito, बनाम 1A, Block 3, Bajaj Apartments, Non-Corporate Ward-1(2), / Vs. Nandanam, Chennai-600 035. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Axaps-7114-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Ms. T.V.Muthu Abirami (Advocate)-Ld.Ar !"थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P.Sajit Kumar (Jcit)-Ld.Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28-08-2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28-08-2023 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. The Only Issue In The Captioned Appeal Is Confirmation Of Disallowance Of Late Payment Of Employees’ Contribution To Pf / Esi. The Cpc Has Made This Adjustment U/S 143(1) As Per Reporting Made In The Tax Audit Report. The Ld. Cit(A) Confirmed The Adjustment By Relying On The Recent Decision Of Hon’Ble Supreme Court In Bunch Of Appeals Titled As Checkmate Services P. Ltd. Vs Cit (143 Taxmann.Com 178). Aggrieved The Assessee Is In Further Appeal Before Us.

For Appellant: Ms. T.V.Muthu Abirami (Advocate)-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri P.Sajit Kumar (JCIT)-Ld.DR
Section 143(1)Section 37(1)

Aa282 Kolappalur Primary Agricultural Coop Credit Society Limited, Erode vs. ITO Ward 2(1), Erode

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 815/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.815/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Aa282 Kolappalur Primary Agricultural Ito, बनाम Co-Operative Credit Society Limited, Ward-2(1), 328, G.D. Road, Kollapalur Erode. / Vs. Gobichettipalayam, Erode-638 456. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacaa-1567-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri E. Sam Victor(Advocate)-Ld.Ar !"थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri P.Sajit Kumar (Jcit)-Ld.Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28-08-2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28-08-2023 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19 Arises Out Of The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 21-03-2022 In The Matter Of An Intimation Issued By Cpc U/S 143(1) 31-05-2019. The Cpc Has Denied Deduction As Claimed By The Assessee U/S 80P(2)(A)(I) Due To The Fact That Return Of Income Was Not Filed Within Due Date U/S 139(1). The Appeal Has Been Dismissed Since The Assessee Failed To Appear During Appellate Proceedings.

For Appellant: Shri E. Sam Victor(Advocate)-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri P.Sajit Kumar (JCIT)-Ld.DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 80P(2)(a)

Sadanand Champakrao Manekar, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CPC, Begaluru

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

ITA 1516/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalesadanand Champak Rao Vs. Dcit, Cpc Manekar Bangalore.-560500 C/O Sanjay Vhanbatte & Compnay, Cts No. 245, C/1, First Floor, Mahalaxmi Bank Bldg, Near Kelavkar Hospital Tarabai Park, Mumbai – 416003. Pan/Gir No. : Acepm7834N Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Bhavesh Jain.Ar Respondent By : Shri Rp Veena.Dr Date Of Hearing 24.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 25.08.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Passed U/S 143(1) & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal. Sadanand Champakrao Manekar, Mumbai. 1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi Erred In Confirming The Addition Made By The Dcit, Cpc, Bengaluru By Way Of Adjustment U/S 143(1)(A) In Respect Of Employees' Contribution To Provident Fund & Esic Payment Of Rs. 14,21,489/- As Not Being Allowable As Deduction Under Section 36(1)(Va) As The Contribution Has Been Deposited With The Respective Authority After The Due Date As Provided Under The Respective Law. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Cit(A), Erred In Not Accepting The Contention Of The Appellant That Such Action Of The Dcit Does Not Fall Within The Ambit Of The Adjustments Prescribed Under Section 143(1)(A). The Appellant Craves Leave To Add To, Amend, Alter, Modify, Delete Or Add A New Ground Of Appeal Before Or At The Time Of Hearing.

For Appellant: Shri Bhavesh Jain.ARFor Respondent: Shri RP Veena.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)