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)

Orissa Assembly of Small and Medium Enterprises, Cuttack vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemption, Cuttack

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 448/CTK/2026[2023-2024]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack05 Jun 2026AY 2023-2024

Bench: S/Shri George Mathan & Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2023-24 Orissa Assembly Of Small & Vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemption), Medium Enterprises, Khapuria, Cuttack Cuttack Pan/Gir No. Aaato 1832 A (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ambika Prasad Mohanty, Ca Revenue By : Shri Vijaya Singh, Ld Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 05/06/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 05/06/2026 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Addl/Jcit(A)- 9, Mumbai Dated 18.3.2026 In Appeal No. Addl/Jcit(A)-9, Mumbai/10061/2022-23 For The Assessment Year 2023-24. 2. Shri Ambika Prasad Mohanty, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Vijaya Singh, Ld Sr Dr Appeared For The Revenue. 3. It Was Submitted By Ld Ar That The Return Filed By The Assessee Came To Be Processed & An Intimation Came To Be Issued U/S.143(1) On 4.12.2024, Wherein, The Assessee Has Been Denied The Benefit Of Registration U/S.12A Of The Act & The Entire Receipts Of The Assessee Has Been Brought To Tax. It Was The Submission That The Assessee Has Filed Rectification Application U/S.154 Of The Act, Which Was Rejected On 2 Assessment Year: 2023-24

For Appellant: Shri Ambika Prasad Mohanty, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vijaya Singh, ld Sr. DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 154

Sarikaben Gopalbhai Polekar, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 1, Bardoli

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 997/SRT/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Surat03 Jun 2026AY 2024-25

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamblems. Sarikaben Gopalbhai Polekar, Income Tax Officer, 2139, Nr. New Ganesh Dairy, Ward 1, Bardoli, Zanda Chowk, Vs. Surat -396195 Tarsadi, Surat– 394120 Pan: Amapp1616M (Appellant) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Darshit J Naik, Ca Respondent By : Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.06.2026 O R D E R Per : Suchitra Kamble, J M: The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Addl/Jcit(A)-4, [In Short “Ld. Cit(A)”], Bengaluru, Dated 19.08.2025 For The Assessment Year (In Short “Ay”) 2024-25. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “) The Appellant Objects To The Erroneous Demand Of Rs. 30,880/- Determined Vide Intimation U/S 143(1). 2) The Appellant Objects To Non-Grant Of Rebate In The Intimation U/S 143(1) While Computing The Total Tax Payable By The Appellant. 3) Both Lower Authorities Erred In Not Granting Rebate U/S 87A Of The Act Of Rs. 25,000/- Claimed Against Tax Payable On Long Term Capital Gains U/S 112, Even Though The Act Permits The Said Rebate Of Tax Against Tax Payable On Long Term Capital Gains U/S 112. Ms. Sarikaben Gopalbhai Polekar

For Appellant: Shri Darshit J Naik, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. DR
Section 111ASection 112Section 112(6)Section 112A(6)Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 234BSection 87A