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)

The Indian Film Combine P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 16, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed

ITA 1985/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Sept 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1985/Mum/2019 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2014-15) बनधम/ The Indian Film Combine Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax-16 Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Room No.442, Aayakar 1St Floor, Maker Tower „F‟ Bhawan, M.K. Road, Cuffe-Parade, Mumbai- Mumbai. 400005. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaaci3611E (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Prakash Jothwani (Ar) Revenue By: Shri Awungshi Gimson (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 06/08/2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 13/09/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 31.01.2019 Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Pcit”] Relevant To The A.Y.2014-15 In Which The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Has Invoked The Provisions U/S 263 Of The I.T. Act, 1961. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “I. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax -16 ("Hereinafter Referred To As The Pcit"), Ignoring The Relevant Facts On Record, Has Erred In Passing Order Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 By Holding That The Assessment Order Passed By The Ito 16(1)(5) ("Hereinafter Referred To As The Learned Ao") U/S 143(3) Of The Act Dated 26.12.2016 Is Erroneous So As To Be Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue & Directing The Ao To Decide All The Issues Afresh. The Appellant Submits That The Order U/S.263 Of The Act For Modifying The Order U/S.143(3) Of The Act Is Bad In Law, Illegal, Ultra-Virus, In Excess Of And/Or In Want Of Jurisdiction & Otherwise Void. 2. The Pcit Failed To Appreciate That The A.O. While Passing Order U/S 143(3) Has Considered The Facts Of The Case & Had Taken The Legally Correct View. The Pcit Erroneously Observed That There Is At Least Some

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jothwani (AR)For Respondent: Shri Awungshi Gimson (DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

Ashok Industrial Corporation, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby partly allowed

ITA 4709/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 4709/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2011-12) Ashok Industrial Corporation बिधम/ Ito 19(1)(2) 18, Shop No.4, C.P. Tank Mumbai. Vs. Road, N.D. Rd, Mumbai-04. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 4710/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2010-11) Ashok Industrial Corporation बिधम/ Ito 19(1)(2) 18, Shop No.4, C.P. Tank Mumbai. Vs. Road, N.D. Rd, Mumbai-04. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaefa5524H (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sashank Dundu Revenue By: Shri Chaitanya Anjaria (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 03/09/2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/09/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Different Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -6, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys.2010-11 & 2011-12. Ita. No. 4710/M/2018

For Appellant: Shri Sashank DunduFor Respondent: Shri Chaitanya Anjaria (DR)
Section 143(1)

Naginbhai Khimji Choudhary HUF, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 19(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be partly allowed accordingly

ITA 4790/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 4790/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Naginbhai Khimji बिधम/ Ito 19(2)(4) Room No.602, 6Th Floor, C- Choudhary Huf Vs. 111, Durgadevi Street, 11, Bkc, Bandra (E), Kumbharwada, Mumbai-04. Mumbai-400051. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 4791/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Naginbhai Khimji बिधम/ Ito 19(2)(4) Room No.602, 6Th Floor, C- Choudhary Huf Vs. 111, Durgadevi Street, 11, Bkc, Bandra (E), Kumbharwada, Mumbai-04. Mumbai-400051. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 4792/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Naginbhai Khimji बिधम/ Ito 19(2)(4) Room No.602, 6Th Floor, C- Choudhary Huf Vs. 111, Durgadevi Street, 11, Bkc, Bandra (E), Kumbharwada, Mumbai-04. Mumbai-400051. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaahn8300G (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Manoj Pandit Revenue By: Shri Chaitanya Anjaria (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 28/08/2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/08/2019

For Appellant: Shri Manoj PanditFor Respondent: Shri Chaitanya Anjaria (DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147