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)

Belim Electromac Industries, Mumbai vs. ITO, WD-13(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 498/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Gosainm/S. Belim Electromac Industries Income Tax Officer-13(2)(1) C/O. M/S. Ravi & Dev, Cas Mumbai 601, 'A' Wing, Aurus Chambers Vs. S.S. Amrutwar Marg Worli, Mumbai 400013 Pan – Aaafb8885A Appellant Respondent Appellant By: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala Respondent By: Shri Suman Kumar Date Of Hearing: 08.03.2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.03.2018 O R D E R Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-24, Mumbai Dated 11.11.2013 For A.Y. 2010-11. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “1.0 The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-24, Mumbai Confirming The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 By The Assessing Officer, Is Both Bad-In-Law & Bad-In-Facts. Disallowance Of Management Training & Development Expenses: Rs. 17,86,032/- 2.0 The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Erred In - (A) Confirming The Disallowance Made By The Assessing Officer, Of Management Training & Development Expenses Of Rs.17, 86,032/- & (B) Confirming The Finding Of The Assessing Officer That These Expenses Were Personal Expenses Of Partner & Were Not Incurred For The Purpose Of Business Of The Assessee.

For Appellant: Shri Anuj KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Shri Suman Kumar
Section 143(3)

Dr. Shailesh Kothalkar, Nagpur vs. ACIT-Central Circle-3, Nagpur

In the result; the appeal filed by the assessee i8 allowed Order pronounced in the open court on O84h March, 2018

ITA 101/NAG/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur08 Mar 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Sf: G.D.Agrawal, Hon'Ble & Sh. Mahavir Singhiano1Qnag/2014 (Axzeexment Yeari 2007_-081 Dr Shailesh Kothalkar; Vs Actt, Bkkardara Chowk, Central Cirele-3, Nagpur-440009. 3Rd Floor Saraf Chambers, Pan-Ahxpk13Izm Sadar_Nagpur 444001, [Apeellaat (Regpondent) Eepellant By Sh,Prgandhi; Adv Respondeat By Dr Milind Bhuaani, Cit Dr Date Oihearing 08.03.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 08,03.2018 Nag7# Order Per Bench This Appeal By Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Arder Of Ld,Citia}-1, Nagpur Vide Order No.Citia}-1/677/2011-12 Dated 26.12.2013. The Asgessment Was Framed By Acit, Circle-3, Nagpur U/S 143(3) R.W.8 263(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short Act"| For A.Y. 2007-08 Vide His Order Dated 26.12.2011, 2 The Only Issue In This Appeal Of A88E88Ee'$ Is Against The Order Of Ld.Cit(A) Confirming The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer On Estimate Basis On The Receipts By Him From Indoor/Outdoor Patients 3 Brief Facts Relating To The Issue Are That The Assessee Is Ent Doctor & Derives Income From Profession & Income From Other Sourceg. A Survey Under Section 1334 Of The Act Wa8 Conducted On The Hospitel Of The Assessee On 14.09.2006. During The Course Of Survey, Certain Documents Were Found & Examined By The Assessing Officer; The Assessing Oficer Noted The Details Of Opd Patients; Indoor Patients & Estimated The Total Indoor & Outdoor

For Appellant: Aggrieved the before Ld.CIT(A) who restricted the addition by assessee prelerr
Section 133Section 143(3)