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)

Income Tax Officer 32 (3) (1), Mumbai vs. Ramrekha Shukla, Mumbai

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

ITA 5805/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jul 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 5805/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Ito-32(3)(1) बिधम/ Ramrekha Shukla Room No.733, 7Th Floor, A/204, Riddhi Co. Operative Vs. Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Hsg. Ltd, Sai Baba Nagar, Bandra (E), Mumbai- Borivali (W), Mumbai- 400051. 400092. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aggpd6265J (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Ms. Smita Verma (Sr. Ar) Assessee By: Shri Mahesh Saboo सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 08/04/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 01/07/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 03.05.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-46, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2011- 12. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “(I) "On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Restricting The Addition To 5% On Account Of Bogus Purchases, Without Appreciating The Fact That The Sales Tax Department Has Proved Beyond Doubt That The Parties Declared As Hawala Traders Were Involved In Providing Accommodation Entry Of Purchases

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh SabooFor Respondent: Ms. Smita Verma (Sr. AR)
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 148

ACIT-22(3), Mumbai vs. Shri Rajesh H Sharma, Mumbai

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

ITA 5929/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.5929/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Acit-22(3) बिधम/ Shri Rajesh H. Sharma 305, 3Rd Floor Piramal B-5, West View, 5. V. Road, Vs. Chambers, Lal Baug, Parel, Santa Cruz (W), Mumbai- Mumbai-400012. 400054. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aafps4578L (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Shri Bharat Andhle (Sr.Ar) Assessee By: Shri Avinash Ravani सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 24/06/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/06/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 11.06.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -34, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2010- 11. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - "1. "Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Cit(A) Erred In Restricting The Addition @ 12.5% Of Bogus Purchases As Against 100% Made By The Assessing Officer Misinterpreting The Judgement In The Case Of M/S Simit P Seth 656 Itr 461(Guj) & Ignoring The Fact That The Assessee Completely Tailed In Substantiating The Purchases Made From Hawala Parties & Ac Rightly A.Y.2010-11 Applied The Ratio Of The Judgment In The Case Of M/S Vijay Proteins Ltd. (1996 58 Itd 428 Ahd".

For Appellant: Shri Avinash RavaniFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhle (Sr.AR)
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)