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)

Classic Clearing & Forwarding Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) NFAC, Delhi

In the result, appeal by assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in the terms aforesaid

ITA 1586/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 1586/मुं/2022 ("न.व. 2017-18) Classic Clearing & Forwarding Private Limited. Room No.4, 1St Floor, Khaitan Chamber, 143/145, Modi Street, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 Pan: Aaacc-2274-K ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Nfac, Delhi. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Himanshu Gandhi ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Ravinder Sindhu सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 20/09/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 29/09/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short ‘The Cit(A) Dated 20/04/2022 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Shri Himanshu Gandhi Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Submitted At The Outset That The Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of Assessee On The Ground Of Limitation Alone. Narrating Sequence Of Events, The Ld. Authorized Representative Of The Assessee Submitted That The Assessee Had Filed Its Return

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Ravinder Sindhu
Section 143(1)Section 154

Sri Prodyut Banerjee, Krishnagar vs. I.T.O., Ward-41(2), Nadia

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 125/KOL/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Sept 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2008-09 Sri Prodyut Banerjee Ito, Ward-41(2), Nadia C/O. Partha Sarathi Gupta, Advocate, 100, Vs. Bank Lane, Hatar Para, P.O. Krishnagar, Dist. Nadia, Pin-741101. [Pan: Ahppb 3698 B (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri K.M. Roy, Advocate & Shri Shri P.S. Gupta, Ar Revenue By : Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, Acit Date Of Hearing : 11.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.09.2022 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 11.09.2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 12, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’]. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Revised & Additional Grounds Of Appeal: “I. For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A)-12, Kolkata Was Not At All Justified In Rejecting The Additional/Specific Grounds Taken At The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal Case. Ii. For That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. Cit(A) Was Not At All Justified In Confirming The Addition Of The Whole Of Rs. 55,095/- & Rs. 83,427/- Respectively Under The Alleged Discrepancies In Stock & Sales On The Ground That The Discrepancy Has Been Arrived At After Issue Of Show Cause Notice To The Appellant.

For Appellant: Shri K.M. Roy, Advocate & Shri Shri P.S. Gupta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, ACIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250