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)

Pratik Bharat Shah, Mumbai vs. Asstt. CIT, Range- 16(3), Mumbai

ITA 3429/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shjoginder Singh & Rajendraआयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./3428 /Mum/2014,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2009-10 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Smt. Pratima B. Shah The Acit, Range-16(3) 2Nd Floor, Matru Mandir 194, Gaiwadi Compound, Girgaum Vs. Road,Mumbai-400 004. Mumbai-400 007. Pan:Aafps 3008 R आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./ 3429/Mum/2014,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2009-10 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Shri Pratik Bharat Shah The Acit, Range-16(3) 2Nd Floor, Matru Mandir 194, Gaiwadi Compound, Girgaum Vs. Road,Mumbai-400 004. Mumbai-400 007. Pan:Aagps 1424 C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Ganesh Bare-Dr Assessee By: S/Shri Vijay Mehta &Anuj Kishnadwala-Ar’S सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 25.05.2016 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 20.07.2016 आयकर आयकर अिधिन यम,1961 क" क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आयकर आयकर अिधिन अिधिनयम अिधिन यम यम 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 Orders,Dated 14.2.14,Of The Cit(A)-27,Mumbai The Assessees Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals.As The Same Issue-Levy Of Penalty U/S.271(1)(C)(1)(C) Of The Act-Is Involved In Both The Cases & The Assessees Are Members Of The Same Family,So,We Are Adjudicating Both The Appeals By A Single Order.

For Appellant: S/Shri Vijay Mehta &Anuj Kishnadwala-AR’sFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh Bare-DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 142(2)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 23Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)

Pratima B. Shah, Mumbai vs. Asstt. CIT, Range- 16(3), Mumbai

ITA 3428/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shjoginder Singh & Rajendraआयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./3428 /Mum/2014,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2009-10 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Smt. Pratima B. Shah The Acit, Range-16(3) 2Nd Floor, Matru Mandir 194, Gaiwadi Compound, Girgaum Vs. Road,Mumbai-400 004. Mumbai-400 007. Pan:Aafps 3008 R आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./ 3429/Mum/2014,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2009-10 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Shri Pratik Bharat Shah The Acit, Range-16(3) 2Nd Floor, Matru Mandir 194, Gaiwadi Compound, Girgaum Vs. Road,Mumbai-400 004. Mumbai-400 007. Pan:Aagps 1424 C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Ganesh Bare-Dr Assessee By: S/Shri Vijay Mehta &Anuj Kishnadwala-Ar’S सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 25.05.2016 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 20.07.2016 आयकर आयकर अिधिन यम,1961 क" क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आयकर आयकर अिधिन अिधिनयम अिधिन यम यम 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 Orders,Dated 14.2.14,Of The Cit(A)-27,Mumbai The Assessees Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals.As The Same Issue-Levy Of Penalty U/S.271(1)(C)(1)(C) Of The Act-Is Involved In Both The Cases & The Assessees Are Members Of The Same Family,So,We Are Adjudicating Both The Appeals By A Single Order.

For Appellant: S/Shri Vijay Mehta &Anuj Kishnadwala-AR’sFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh Bare-DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 142(2)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 23Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)

R.Govindarajulu, Udamalpet vs. ITO, Pollachi

Accordingly, we sustain the addition made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). Hence, the ground raised by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 371/CHNY/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jul 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyi T.A. Nos. 1333/Mds/2014 & 371/Mds/2015 Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11 Shri R. Govindarajulu, The Income Tax Officer, No. 15, Sikkandar Batsha Street, Vs. Ward I(1), Gandhinagar (Po), Udumalpet. Pollachi. [Pan:Ahcpg9679A] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri T. Banusekar, C.A. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Mathivanan, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 21.04.2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 15.07.2016 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: Both The Appeals Filed By The Same Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Ii, Coimbatore Dated 26.02.2014 & 29.09.2014 For The Relevant Assessment Years 2009-10 & 2010-11 Respectively. For The Assessment Year 2009-10, The First Common Ground Raised In The Appeal Is With Regard To Confirmation Of Addition Of ₹. 20,00,000/- Made Under Section 69 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] As Unexplained Investment In Repayment Of Housing Loan, (2) Confirmation Of Estimation Of Income From Fast Moving Goods At 2

For Appellant: Shri T. Banusekar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Mathivanan, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69

R.Govindarajulu, Udamalpet vs. ITO, Pollachi

Accordingly, we sustain the addition made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). Hence, the ground raised by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1333/CHNY/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jul 2016AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyi T.A. Nos. 1333/Mds/2014 & 371/Mds/2015 Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11 Shri R. Govindarajulu, The Income Tax Officer, No. 15, Sikkandar Batsha Street, Vs. Ward I(1), Gandhinagar (Po), Udumalpet. Pollachi. [Pan:Ahcpg9679A] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri T. Banusekar, C.A. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Mathivanan, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 21.04.2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 15.07.2016 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: Both The Appeals Filed By The Same Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Ii, Coimbatore Dated 26.02.2014 & 29.09.2014 For The Relevant Assessment Years 2009-10 & 2010-11 Respectively. For The Assessment Year 2009-10, The First Common Ground Raised In The Appeal Is With Regard To Confirmation Of Addition Of ₹. 20,00,000/- Made Under Section 69 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] As Unexplained Investment In Repayment Of Housing Loan, (2) Confirmation Of Estimation Of Income From Fast Moving Goods At 2

For Appellant: Shri T. Banusekar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Mathivanan, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69