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)

DCIT Cercle-1, Kalyan vs. Bhave Engineering Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed and appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed accordingly

ITA 1913/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Mar 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1913/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Dcit, Circle-1 बिधम/ Bhave Engineering Pvt. Ltd. 1St Floor, Mohan Plaza C/O. D. C. Bothra & Co. Vs. Llp (Ca) (Formerly Known Wayle Nagar, Khadakpada, As D. C 297, Tardeo Road, Kalyan-West-421301 Wille Mansion, 1St Floor, . Opp Bank Of India, Nana Chowk, Mumbai. & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1818/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिधम/ Bhave Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Acit, Circle-1 1St Floor, Mohan Plaza C/O. D. C. Bothra & Co. Llp Vs. (Ca) (Formerly Known As D. Wayle Nagar, Khadakpada, C 297, Tardeo Road, Wille Kalyan-West-421301 Mansion, 1St Floor, Opp Bank Of India, Nana Chowk, Mumbai. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacb7065K (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rajkumar Singh Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Joshi (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 07/12/2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 01/03/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue As Well As Assessee Has Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Order Dated 16.01.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of

For Appellant: Shri Rajkumar SinghFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Joshi (DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148

Aircel Cellular Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai

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

ITA 1270/CHNY/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Feb 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1270/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2007-08 M/S. Aircel Cellular Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of Spencer Plaza, 5Th Floor, 769, Vs. Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002. Chennai. [Pan:Aaacr5136R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Ashik Shah, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Bharath, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 20.01.2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19.02.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 4, Chennai, Dated 31.01.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2007-08. Besides Raising Various Grounds, The Assessee Mainly Challenged The Exparte Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) Without Affording Sufficient Opportunity Of Being Heard & Without Addressing The Grounds Of Appeal On Merits.

For Appellant: Shri Ashik Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Shri S. Bharath, CIT
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80I

Heideberg India Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 2(2), Chennai

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

ITA 1476/CHNY/2018[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Feb 2021AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1476/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2004-05 M/S. Heidelberg India Private Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. No. 333,Gst Road, Chrompet, Income Tax, Corporate Circle 2(2), Chennai 600 044. No. 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, [Pan: Aabch0615E] Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S.P. Chidambaram, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Suresh Periasamy, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 02.12.2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16.02.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 13, Chennai Dated 05.01.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2004-05. In The Grounds Of Appeal, The Assessee Has Challenged The Confirmation Of Disallowance Of Claim Of Deduction Of Forfeiture Of Advance Rent.

For Appellant: Shri S.P. Chidambaram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Periasamy, JCIT
Section 115ISection 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 254