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)

Vijay Lal, Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 120/CTK/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack20 Mar 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.120/Ctk/2017 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-2014) Vijay Lal Vs. Dcit, Circle-2(1), C/O-Vijay Motors-Mahindra Bhubaneswar Division, Plot No.27, Near Chintamaniswar Square & Icici Bank, Cuttack Road, Bhubaneswar-751006 स्थायी लेखा सं./ Pan No. : Aaepl 8429 N (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. निर्ाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri D.K.Pradhan, Citdr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 08/03/2018 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 20/03/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar, Dated 23.12.2016 For The Assessment Year 2013-2014. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- 1. That The Learned Assessing Officer Has Erred Both In Law & In Fact By Making An Addition Of Rs.2,67,73,661/- To The Returned Total Income As Loss Of Stock By Fire As Unexplained Expenses, Which Is Contrary To The Evidence On Record, Rules & Facts, Hence The Same Is Liable To Be Deleted. 2. That The Learned Cit (A) Has Erred Both In Law & In Fact By Confirming The Addition Of Rs.2,67,73,661/- To The Returned Total Income As Loss Of Stock By Fire Being Unexplained Expenses, Which Is Contrary To The Evidence On Record, Rules & Facts, Hence The Same Is Liable To Be Deleted. 3. That The Learned Assessing Officer Has Erred Both In Law & In Fact By Making An Addition Of Rs.4,32,692/- To The Returned Total Income As Goods Delivery Expenses Being Unexplained

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, CITDR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 44A

Jagdish Prasad Agrawal, Jabalpur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

In the result, ground nos

ITA 112/JAB/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur15 Mar 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad""./ Ita No. 112/Jab/2014 "" " " " " " "  / Assessment Year : 2008-09   Jagdish Prasad Agrawal, Assistant Commissioner Of H. No.159, Main Bazar, Vs Income-Tax, Shahpura Bhitoni, Circle 1(1), Jabalpur (Mp) Jabalpur (Mp) Pan : Adopa 8458 K / (Appellant) / (Respondent)         Assessee By : Shri Vijay Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Shri Pd Chougule, Dr $ %&'/Date Of Hearing : 13/03/2018 ! "# $ %&' /Date Of Pronouncement: 15/03/2018 ()*+ "# .//O R D E R , - Per Manish Borad:- This Appeal Of Assessee For Assessment Year 2008-09 Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-I, Jabalpur Dated 25.02.2014 Vide Appeal No.J/Cit(A)/Dcit/Circle1(1)/Jbp/91/2010-11, Arising Out Of Intimation Under Section 143(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”), Issued By The Dcit, Circle 1(1), Jabalpur On 13.03.2010. 2. We Have Heard The Rival Contentions & Perused The Material Placed Before Us. We Find That The Assessee Has Raised Two Issues; Firstly, Challenging The Validity Of The Intimation Issued Under Section 143(1) Of The Act & Secondly, On The Addition Made In The Intimation Sheet, Thereby Assessing The Income At Rs.9,08,660/- As Against The Income Of Rs.75,890/- Shown By The Assessee In The Income-Tax Return. We Further Find That That The Appeal Came Up For Adjudication Before The Tribunal On 06.04.2016 & The Issue Of Validity Of Intimation Was Adjudicated By The Tribunal But Did Not Adjudicate Ground Nos. 2 & 3 Relating To The Merits Of The Case. Jagdish Prasad Agrawal Vs. Acit Ay : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri PD Chougule, DR
Section 143(1)Section 154