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)

Bishwa Nath Kharakia, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-34(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1487/KOL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Apr 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz)] [Through Virtual Court] I.T.A. No. 1487/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Bishwa Nath Kharakia......................................……………………………………………………Appellant 39, Strand Road, Room – 68, Kolkata – 700 001. [Pan: Afopk 1288 D] Vs Ito, Ward – 34(1), Kolkata...................……………………………………………….............Respondent Appearances By: Shri S.M. Surana, Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Jayanta Khanra, Jcit, Sr. Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 19, 2021 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 23, 2021 Order This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Kolkata Dated 26.04.2019 & The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Therein Read As Under: “I. That The Ld. Cit (Appeals) Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Learned Income Tax Officer In Making An Addition Of Rs. 8,30,797/-, As Alleged Cash Credit, In Place Of Treating The Same As Long Term Capital Gain Earned By The Appellant On Sale Of Shares Exempt U/S 10(38) Of The I.T. Act, 1961. The Learned Cit(A) Has Confirmed The Said Addition On The Alleged Ground That The Transactions Looked To Him As Unnatural & Suspicious In Nature. He Should Have Appreciated That The Shares Were In The Demat Account Of The Appellant For More Than 4 (Four) Years & There Was No Specific Adverse Information Against The Appellant From Dit (Inv.) Ii. That The Learned Cit (Appeals) Erred In Confirming An Addition Of Rs. 4154/- U/S 69C Of The I.T. Act As Alleged

Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 147iSection 148Section 68Section 69C

DCIT 4(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Khanna Rayon Industries P.Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 3233/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3233/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) बिधम/ Dcit, Cir 4(2)(1) M/S. Khanna Rayon Room No.642, 6Th Floor, Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. 1St Floor, Silk House, Silk Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Bazar, J.S.S. Road, Dhobi Talao, Mumbai-400002. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aajcs3407M (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Sandeep Raj (Dr) Assessee By: Shri K. Gopal & Ms. Neha Paranjpe (Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 25/03/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/04/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 03.01.2017 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -09 Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2012- 13. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - "1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Allowing Relief To The Assessee Of Rs. 17,00,00,000/- On Account Of Sale Of Tdr, Holding It As A Capital Receipt Not Subject To Tax, Without Appreciating The Fact That The Assessee Itself Submitted That Out Of 86,000 Sq. Ft. Of Saleable Area, 65,000 Sq. Ft. Was Constructed & A.Y.2012-13 The Balance Of 21, 000 Sq. Ft. Of Saleable Area Which Was Kept For Themselves Have Been Converted As Stock-In-Trade In A. Y. 1995-96 & Was Reflected In The Books At The Notional Market Value".

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal & Ms. Neha ParanjpeFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Raj (DR)
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14A

Income Tax Officer-19(1)(3), Mumbai vs. Ganpat Metal Industries, Mumbai

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

ITA 5125/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Apr 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 5125/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Ito-19(1)(3) बिधम/ Ganpat Metal Industries Room No.220, 2Nd Floor, Shop No.1 Narayan Niwas, Vs. 2Nd Khetwadi Lane Near Matru Mandir Building, Tardeo Road, Mumbai- Alankar Cinema, Mumbai- 400007. 400004. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aagfg1194B (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Ms. Smita Verma (Sr. Ar) Assessee By: None सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 25/02/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/04/2021 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)-07, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2009- 10. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Justified In Restricting The Addition @ 12.5% As Against @ 19.5% Made By The Ao On Bogus Purchases Despite The Fact That The Addition Was Made On Basis Of Credible Information Received From Dgit(Inv.) Based On Information Supplied From Sales Tax Authorities.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Smita Verma (Sr. AR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

Chhabilkumar P. Adani, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 19(1)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 691/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 691/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Chhabilkumar P. Adani बिधम/ Ito-19(1)(3) 238, 2Nd Kumbharwada Room No.220, 2Nd Floor, Vs. Lane, Sant Sena Maharaj Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Marg, Mumbai-400004. Mumbai-400007. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abspc8423A (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Jitendra Singh (Ar) Revenue By: Ms. Shreekala Pardeshi (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 18/02/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/04/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 16.05.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-53, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2011-12. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -53, Mumbai (Hereinafter Referred To As "Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Passing The Order Dated 16.05.2018 Without Providing The Appellant An Appropriate Opportunity Of Being Heard. Thus, The Order Passed By Ld. Cit(A) Is Against The Principals Of Natural Justice & The Same May Be Quashed. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Ld. A.0. In Making The Addition Of Rs.1,05,13,876/-Treating The Same As

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Singh (AR)For Respondent: Ms. Shreekala Pardeshi (DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 234BSection 69C

Gul Manoharlal Makhijani, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward - 2(1), Kalyan

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby dismissed

ITA 3208/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 3208/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 3209/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Gul Manoharlal Makhijani बिधम/ Commissioner Of Income 6, Red Rose Society, Opp, Tax-3, Vs. Room No.30, A- Wing, 6Th Chopra Court, Ulhasnagar, Maharashtra-421003. Floor, Ashar I. T. Park, Wagle Indl, Estate, Thane- 400064. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aazpm5806H (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri T. S. Khalsa (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 18/02/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/04/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Order Dated 22.02.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Thane [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys. 2009- 10 & 2010-11. Ita. No.3208/M/2019

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri T. S. Khalsa (DR)
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148