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 10(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Nikmo Entertainment Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby ordered to be dismissed

ITA 4944/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4944/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Acit 10(3)(1) बिधम/ Nikmo Entertainment Ltd. R.No. 212 Aayakar Bhavan, Now Known As Pvr Ltd. Vs. 10Th Floor, 215 Atrium M.K. Rd Andheri Kurla Rd. Mumbai Mumbai Pin:400020 Pin:400059 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacp4526D (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav ( Dr) Assessee By: Shri None सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 07.08.2017 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22.09.2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 16.05.2016, Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-21 Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The Ay.2012- 13. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds:- “Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Holding Entertainment Duty Collected By The Assessee As Capital Receipt Relying On The Decision Of Hon’Ble Bombay High Court In The Case Of Cit Vs. Chaphalkar Brothers Without Appreciating The Fact That The

For Appellant: Shri NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav ( DR)
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

Satendra Prasad, Baripada vs. DCIT, Balasore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 306/CTK/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack19 Sept 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.306/Ctk/2015 (धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2011-2012) Satendra Prasad, Vs. Dcit, Balasore Circle, Ward No.5, Kacheri Road, Balasore Baripada-757001 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aelpp 6065 K (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri D.K.Sheth, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri D.K.Pradhan,Citdr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 18/09/2017 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 19/09/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed An Appeal Against The Order Of Cit(A), Cuttack, In Appeal No.0674/2013-14, Dated 27.02.2015, Passed U/S.143(3)/250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The Assessment Year 2011-2012, 2. The Only Substantive Ground Raised By The Assessee That The Cit(A) Erred In Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee & The Adhoc Addition Made By The Ao Is Unjustified. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Civil Contractor Based In Mayurbhanj District, Odisha & Filed The Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2010-2011 On 24.05.2012 With Total Income Of Rs.44,68,660/- & The Return Of Income Was Processed U/S.143(1) Of The Act & Subsequently The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Under & Notice U/S.143(2) & 142(1) Was Issued. In Compliance To The Same, Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Appeared From Time To Time.

For Appellant: Shri D.K.Sheth, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan,CITDR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

Pinaki Dineshkumar Panani, Mumbai vs. ACIT 25(3), Mumbai

ITA 1167/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai15 Sept 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Sh. Rajendra & Ravish Soodआयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./1167/Mum/2017, िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2008-09 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Acit, -25(3) Smt. Pinaki Dineshkumar Panani Mumbai. 401, Mangal Villa, Tejpal Road, Vs. Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-400 057. Pan:Aijpp 0802 A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Saurabh Kumar-Dr Assessee By: None सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 24/08/2017 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 15/09/2017 आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम क" क" धारा धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार /Per Rajendra, Am- अनुसार Challenging The Order,Dated 23/12/2016,Of Cit(A)-37,Mumbai The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal.Assessee,An Individual,Filed Her Return Of Income On 19/09/2008,Declaring Income Of Rs.37.27 Lakhs.Initially The Return Was Processed U/S. 143(1) Of The Act.Subsequently,The Assessment Was Completed U/S.143(3) Of The Act,On 16/11/2010,Determining Her Income At Rs.31.80 Lakhs. On Receipt Of Information From Sales Department The Ao Re-Opened The Assessment,Invoking The Provisions Of Section 148 Of The Act. He Finalised The Assessment U/S.143(3) R.W.S 147 Of The Act On 4/3/16 Determining The Income Of The Assessee At Rs.70.16 Lakhs.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 254(1)

Mira Devi Dasrapuria, Khurda vs. ITO, Khurda Ward, Khurda

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 363/CTK/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack31 Aug 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.363/Ctk/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2011-2012) Smt. Mira Devi Dasrapuria, Vs. Ito, Khurda Main Road, Khurda-752055 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abkpm 8607 J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Mahesh Kumar Agarwalla,Ar राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri D.K.Pradhan,Citdr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 24/08/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 31/08/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed An Appeal Against The Order Of Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar, Dated 15.7.2016, Passed In I.T.Appeal No.0317/15-16, U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The Assessment Year 2011- 2012. 2. The Assessee Has Challenged The Action Of Cit(A) In Confirming The Penalty Levied U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Act, Though The Assessee Has Furnished Information & Accepted The Income In The Course Of Assessment Proceedings. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is In The Business Of Retail Trading In Cement & Iron Materials & Wholesale Distributor Of Airtel Rcv & Filed The Return Of Income Electronically For The Assessment Year 2010-2011 On 29.09.2011 With Total Income Of Rs.1,81,000/- & The Return Of Income Was Processed U/S.143(1) Of The Act. Subsequently

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh Kumar Agarwalla,ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan,CITDR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274(1)

DCIT, Chennai vs. Indo Tech Transformer Ltd., Chennai

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

ITA 781/CHNY/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Aug 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I T.A. No. 781/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2005-06 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Indo Tech Transformer Ltd., Income Tax, Corporate Circle 2(2), Vs. No. Dp-36, Sidco Industrial Estate, Room No.512, 5Th Floor, Wanaparthy Thirumazhisai, Chennai 602 107. Block, 121, M.G. Road, [Pan:Aaaci5775P] Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Asish Tripathi, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 29.08.2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.08.2017 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 6, Chennai Dated 19.01.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2005-06. The Only Effective Ground Raised In The Appeal Of The Revenue Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Disallowance Made On Account Of Contractual Deduction To Eb & Bad Debts Written Off By Admitting Fresh Evidence In Violation Of Rule 46A Of The Income Tax Rules.

For Appellant: Shri Asish Tripathi, JCITFor Respondent: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80I