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. Imperial Granites (P) Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 375/CHNY/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Jan 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.375/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Imperial Granites P. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of 76, Cathedral Road, Gopalapuram, Vs. Income Tax, Chennai 600 086. Centralize Processing Center, Bengaluru 650 500. [Pan:Aaaci2721B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri D. Palanivel, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. Boopathi, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 22.12.2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05.01.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 6, Chennai Dated 29.11.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2017-18. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Delayed By Three Days, For 2. Which, The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of The Delay In Support Of An Affidavit, To Which; The Ld. Dr Has Not Raised Any Serious Objection. Consequently, Since The Assessee Was Prevented By 2

For Appellant: Shri D. Palanivel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Boopathi, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 40

Venkatesh Rajgopal, Chennai vs. ACIT Company Circle 1(3), Chennai

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

ITA 2167/CHNY/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Dec 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2167/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Venkatesh Rajgopal, The Assistant Commissioner Of ‘Vidyanjali, No. 10, Rajgopalan 2Nd Vs. Income Tax, Street, Valmiki Nagar, Thiruvanmiyur, Company Circle 1(3), Chennai 600 041. Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034. [Pan: Adfpr6333R] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri G. Johnson, Cit : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 15.12.2021 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.12.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 4, Chennai, Dated 27.04.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2009-10. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Delayed By Ten Days, For 2. Which, The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of The Delay In Support Of An Affidavit, To Which; The Ld. Dr Has Not Raised Any Serious Objection. Consequently, Since The Assessee Was Prevented By 2

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 154(3)

Jurisdictional ITO -31(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Gopalbhai Shamjibhai Kalsaria, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 439/MUM/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Dec 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.439/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Ito-31(1)(1) बिधम/ Gopalbhai Shamjibhai Kalsaria Room No.603, 6Th Floor, 122/10, Jawahar Nagar, Road Vs. Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra No.10 Goregaon (W), Mumbai- Kurla Complex, „G‟ Block, 400062. Bandra (E), Mumbai- 400051. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aagpk6469B (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Prasoon Kabra Assessee By: None सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 25/11/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/12/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 21.01.2020 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -42 Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2009- 10. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - "On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Estimating The Profit To 12.5% Of Bogus Purchases Against 100% Addition Made By The Ao. A.Y.2009-10 On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred, In Not Considering That The Addition Was Made On The Basis Of Information Received From Dgit(Inv.) & Sales Tax Department Maharashtra With Regard To Bogus Purchases Made By The Assessee From Dealers Without Supply Of Actual Goods. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred, In Not Considering That The Hawala Operators Have Admitted On Oath Before The Sales Tax Authorities That They Have Not Sold Any Material To Anybody. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred, In Not Considering That The Assessee Could Not Prove The Genuineness & Creditworthiness Of Purchase Transactions During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Prasoon Kabra
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147