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)

ACIT, Cuttack vs. Paradip Port Trust, Jagatsinghpur

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 121/CTK/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack24 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.121/Ctk/2013 (धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-2011) Acit, Circle-1(1), Cuttack Vs. Paradip Port Trust, Paradeep, Jagatsinghpur स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaalp 0055 A (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Kunal Singh, Cit Dr निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri J.M.Pattnaik, Ar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 12/10/2017 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 24/10/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed This Appeal Against The Order Dated 29.12.2014, Passed By The Cit(A), Cuttack, For The Assessment Year 2010-2011. 2. Facts Giving Rise To The Present Appeal Are That The Assessee Is A Local Authority & Running A Major Port At Paradeep & Filed The Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2010-11 On 27.09.2010 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.4,16,73,05,074/- & The Return Of Income Was Processed U/S.143(1) Of The Act. Subsequently, Notices U/S.143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act Were Served, Calling Various Details, Accounts & Explanations. In Compliance, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Appeared & Filed The Details & Various Issues Were Discussed. The Ao On Perusal Of The Facts Farmed The Assessment U/S.143(3) Of The Act Making Additions On Account Of Prior Period Expenses, Provision For Accrued Expenses, Provisions Towards Pension Fund, Interest Accrued On Investment On Capital Asset, Capital

For Appellant: Shri J.M.Pattnaik, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kunal Singh, CIT DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

Shrestha Kajaria Benefit Trust, Kolkata vs. ITO, W-43(4), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 726/KOL/2016[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Oct 2017AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am] I.T.A. No. 726/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shrestha Kajaria Benefit Trust..............................………………………Appellant 74/2, Ajc Bose Road, Suit 5E Kolkata – 700016 [Pan: Aagts2871M] Ito, Ward 73(4)...................…………………………………………………….Respondent 3, Govt. Place, Ground Floor Kolkata - 700001 Appearances By: Shri Akkal Dudhwala, Aca Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Arup Chatterjee, Addl. Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 18, 2017 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 13 , 2017 Order This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit (Appeals) – 13, Kolkata Dated 22.01.2016 & The Grounds Raised Therein By The Assessee Are As Under: “1. That The Appeal Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)-12, Kolkata. 2. That The Cases Is Directed Towards The Single Issue Involved About The Action Of Ld. Cit (A) To Upheld The Act Of The Ld. Ito In Applying The Maximum Marginal Rate Of Tax (At 30%) On The Trust In Spite All The Conditions Of Section 161(1) Of The Income Tax Act 1961 Are Fulfilled & The Trust Should Be Taxed As Status Of Individual. 3. That The Ld. Cit (A) Has Erred In Not Observing The Fact That The Maximum Marginal Rate Of Tax Was Applied That The Maximum Marginal Rate Of Tax Was Applied To The Assessee By The Ld. Ito By Passing Order U/S 143(1) Without Giving Reasonable Opportunity Of Being Heard To The Assessee & Charging Tax At The Maximum Marginal Rates Of Taxes.

Section 143(1)Section 161(1)Section 164Section 164(1)