Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.270

Section 143(3) 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(3) is National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT (229 ITR 383), cited in 5,834 of the 75,154 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 143(3)

National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT
229 ITR 383 · 1998 · Supreme Court
5,834
citing judgments

Appellate authorities can consider new claims and additional grounds if the relevant facts are already on record. The purpose of assessment is to correctly determine tax liability, allowing both parties to raise issues.

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.

CIT v. Kabul Chawla
380 ITR 573 · 2016 · High Court
3,235
citing judgments

In a search assessment under Section 153A, additions can only be made for completed or non-abated assessment years if incriminating material relevant to those years is found during the search, although notice under Section 153A(1) is mandatorily issued for six assessment years preceding the search.

Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT
243 ITR 83 · 2000 · Supreme Court
2,943
citing judgments

For revision under Section 263, the Assessing Officer's order must be both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue; if either condition is not met, the revisionary jurisdiction cannot be invoked. An order is not erroneous merely because the Assessing Officer did not record the details of enquiries conducted, provided due enquiries were made.

CIT v. Vegetable Products Ltd.
88 ITR 192 · 1973 · Supreme Court
2,664
citing judgments

When two equally plausible interpretations of a taxing provision are possible, or when conflicting views exist from non-jurisdictional High Courts, the interpretation that favors the assessee must be adopted.

CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory
359 ITR 565 · 2013 · High Court
2,590
citing judgments

A penalty notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) is invalid if it fails to specify whether the penalty proceedings are initiated for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. This non-specification vitiates the penalty proceedings.

Pr. CIT v. Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd.
149 Taxmann.com 399 · 2023 · Supreme Court
2,379
citing judgments

An assessment under section 153A is without jurisdiction if there is an absence of incriminating material for an unabated assessment year.

CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd.
38 ITD 320 · 1991 · ITAT
2,267
citing judgments

An appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal can be dismissed for non-prosecution or treated as unadmitted when the appellant fails to appear, cooperate, or show diligence, in accordance with Rule 19(2) of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules. The law aids the vigilant, not those who sleep on their rights.

CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd.
322 ITR 158 · 2010 · Supreme Court
2,228
citing judgments

Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment of income is not automatically leviable if the assessee has made a full disclosure of all particulars and the addition or disallowance arises from a difference of opinion.

CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd.
313 ITR 340 · 2009 · High Court
2,118
citing judgments

Where an assessee claims that investments were made out of own funds, interest disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D may not apply if the assessee demonstrates the availability of sufficient interest-free funds to cover such investments.

Judgments on Section 143(3)

Tnq Technologies Private Limited, Chennai vs. Corporate Ward 3(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as far as amount of Rs

ITA 1426/CHNY/2026[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Jul 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Honourable George George K. & Shri Gagan Goyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1426/Chny/2026 ननिाजरण वर्ज /Assessment Years: 2020-21 Tnq Technologies Private Limited. V. Income Tax Officer, No.509, 510, 510A Chaitanya Imperial Corporate Ward-3(1), B-Block, 3Rd F1 Teynampet, Chennai. Chennai-600 018. [Pan: Aadct6066B] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr. V. Ravichandran, F.C.A, Ld. Ar प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Mr. Biplab Gangopadhyay, Jcit Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29.06.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 02.07.2026 आदेश / O R D E R Per Gagan Goyal, Am: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), Addl. / Jcit(A)-1, (Hereinafter Referred As The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’), Nashik Dated 16.01.2026 For The Assessment Year (Hereinafter Referred As The ‘Ay’) 2020-21. Grounds Of Appeal 1) The Adjustments Are Unjustified Since The Scope Of Adjustments In Proceedings Under Section 143(1) Is Limited To Apparent Errors Or Incorrect Claims. 2) The Variation Between The Income Assessed As Per Impugned Intimation & The Returned Income Is Unjustified. 3) The Adjustment Made In The Said Impugned Intimation Is Illegal Since The Proviso To Section 143(1) (A) Requires That An Intimation Be Given To The Assessee Of Any Proposed Adjustment. Tnq Technologies Pvt. Ltd. 4) The Variation In The Impugned Intimation Is Unjustified Since On The Very Same Day An Assessment U/S 143(3) Was Made After The Scrutiny Of The Accounts.

For Appellant: Mr. V. Ravichandran, F.C.AFor Respondent: Mr. Biplab Gangopadhyay, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

Ayodhya Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward-1(3), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 3703/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Jul 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3703/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ayodhya Flour Mills Pvt.Ltd. The Income Tax Officer 3/11, Seshachala Vs. Corporate Ward 1(3) Gramini Garden Street Chennai. Sathangadu, Chennai – 600 119 [Pan: Aaacv2495B] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) अपीलधर्थी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Vikram Vijaya Raghavan, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. E.Elango, Jcit सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing : 10.06. 2026 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 02.07.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am : The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 3.11.2025 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld. Cit(A)”], Arising From The Assessment Order Dated 23.12.2019 Passed By The Income Tax Officer, Corporate Ward 1(3) Chennai [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ao”], U/S.147 R.W.S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: 1. The Order Of The Cit (Appeals)-Nfac Is Contrary To Law & Facts Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri. Vikram Vijaya Raghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. E.Elango, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Pvp Ventures Ltd, Chennai vs. ITO, Crop Ward -5(2), Chennai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1837/CHNY/2025[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Jul 2026AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1837/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2004-05 Pvp Ventures Limited The Income Tax Officer Krm Centre, 9Th Floor Vs. Corporate Ward 5(2) No.2, Harrington Road, Chennai. Chepet, Chepet S.O. Chennai – 600 031. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) [Pan: Aaacs3101P] (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) अपीलधर्थी की ओर से/Appellant By : Ms.M.Lavanya, Ca प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. E.Elango, Jcit सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing : 10.06. 2026 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 02.07.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am : The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 30.04.2025 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld. Cit(A)”], Arising From The Assessment Order Dated 18.12.2006 Passed By The Income Tax Officer, Corporate Ward 5(2) Chennai [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ao”], U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2004-05. :-2-: Ita. No:1837/Chny/2025

For Appellant: Ms.M.Lavanya, CAFor Respondent: Shri. E.Elango, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(iii)