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)

India Index Services & Products Ltd, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 14(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 6913/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6913/Mum/2017 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2012-13) बनधम/ M/S. India Index Services Acit-14(2)(2) Aaykar Bhawan, 4Th Floor & Products Ltd. Vs. Room No.432, M.K. Plot No. C-1, Block G, Road, Mumbai-400020. Exchange Plaza, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai-400051. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaci5633A (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Shri Abirama Kartikiyen (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Percy Pardiwala Sukh Sagar Syal सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 05.03.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/04/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 01.09.2017 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-22, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2012- 13. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Ld. Ao In Disallowing Rs.74,43,942/- Being Research & Administration Fee Incurred For Strategic Business Planning By Treating The Same As Capital In Nature & The Reasons Assigned For Doing So Are Wrong & Contrary To The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Provisions Of Income Tax Act, 1961 & Rules Made Thereunder. 2. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Alter, Amend And/Or Modify The Above Grounds Of Appeal On Or Before The Date Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwalaFor Respondent: Shri Abirama Kartikiyen (DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

Hajaram P. Purohit, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 5(3), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby ordered to be allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 760/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos.760 & 761/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13) Shri Hajaram P. Purohit बिधम/ Dcit Central Circle-5(3) Air India Building, 19Th Prop: Rinku Steel Vs. Corporation Ground Floor, Floor, Nariman Point, Zariwala Building, 1St Mumbai-400021. Khetwadi Lane, Near, Alankar Cinema, Mumbai- 400004. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Agupp6813E (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Manoj Kumar Singh (Dr) Assessee By: None सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 02.04.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24/04/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Order Dated 1.11.2017 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -53, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys.2011-12 & 2012-13. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “Being Aggrieved By The Order Of Learned Cit (Appeals)-53. Mumbai. The Appellant Submits Herewith The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Singh (DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148

J.K.Bros., Mumbai vs. ITO, WD-19(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3010/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3010/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. J.K. Bros बिधम/ Ito Ward 19(2)(1) C/O Kirit K. Gandhi B-131, Mumbai. Vs. Simandhar City, Trimandir Sankul, Ahmedabad Kalol Highway, Adalaj, Gandhinagar 382421. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadfj5267B (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Chaitanya Anjaria (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Vijay Mehta सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 09/04/2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/04/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 15.03.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -30, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2009- 10. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. The Id Cit(Appeals) Erred Both In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Additions Of Rs.26.62.510/- Being A 12.5 % Of The Alleged A.Y.2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Chaitanya Anjaria (DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148