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)

Nirmal N Kotecha, Mumbai vs. CIT(28), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 3700/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri Rajendra & Ram Lal Negiआयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./3567/Mum/2015, िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2009-10 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Acit-17(2) Mr. Nirmal N. Kotecha Room No.134, Aayakar Bhavan 601, Sukh Castle, Bhadarkar Road Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020. Matunga,Mumbai-400 019. Pan:Aezpk 2016 H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./3700/Mum/2015, िनधा"रण अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2009-10 वष" Mr. Nirmal N. Kotecha Vs. Acit-17(2) Mumbai-400 019. Mumbai-400 020. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Jagdish P. Jangid-Dr Assessee By: Shri Pradeep Kapasi-Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 19.05.2017 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 07.06.2017 आयकर आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" अिधिनयम क" क" धारा क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश अ"तग"त आदेश 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 27/03/2015,Of The Cit(A)-28,Mumbai,The Assessing Officer (Ao)And The Assessee Have Filed Cross-Appeals For The Above-Mentioned Assessment Year. Assessee,An Individual,Filed His Return Of Income On 30/09/2009, Declaring Total Loss Of Rs. 4. 70Crores.The Ao Completed The Assessment,U/S.143(3) Of The Act,On 29/12/2011,Determining His Income At Rs. 49.29 Crores.

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Kapasi-ARFor Respondent: Shri Jagdish P. Jangid-DR
Section 14Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 254(1)

Buniyad Chemicals Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 10(1), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed accordingly

ITA 2410/MUM/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: S/Sh.Rajendra & Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./2787/Mum/2015,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2006-07 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Asst Cit-14(1)(2) M/S. Buniyad Chemicals Ltd. 460, Aayakar Bhavan Block-H, Shri Sadashiv Chs, 6Th Road Vs. 4Th Floor, M.K. Marg Santcruz East,Mumbai-400 055 Mumbai-400 055. Pan:Aabcb 6954 G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./2410/Mum/2015,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2006-07 वष" M/S. Buniyad Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Dy. Cit-10-(1)Room No.455, Mumbai-400 055. Aayakar Bhavan,Mumbai-400 020. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By: Ms. Anupama Singla-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Mukesh Choksi सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 25/04/2017 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 07.06.2017 लेखा सद"य लेखा सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार अनुसार Per Rajendra, Am- लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Challenging The Order Dated 18.02.2015 Of The Cit(A)-22,Mumbai,The Assessing Officer (Ao) & The Assessee Have Filed Cross Appeals For The Above Mentioned Ay.Assessee - Company Is Engaged In Providing Accommodation Entries To Various Beneficiaries In Consideration Of Certain Percentage Of Commission On The Transaction.It Filed Its Return Of Income On 17.10. 2007,Declaring Nil Income.The Assessment U/S.143(3) Was Completed By The Ao On 16.12. 2008,Determining Its Income At Rs.9,28,78,990/-.The Case Was Re-Opened For Assessment U/S. 147 Of The Act.The Ao Completed The Assessment U/S.143(3) R.W.S.147 Of The Act,On 12/03/ 2014,Determining The Income Of The Assessee At Rs.9,91,78,990/-.

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh ChoksiFor Respondent: Ms. Anupama Singla-DR
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 147

DCIT 5(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Trigent Software Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 3629/MUM/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: S/Shri Rajendra & Saktijit Deyआयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं/ Ita No.3629/Mum/2015&7668/Mum/13: आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष"/Assessment Year:2006-07 & 2007-08 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Dcit-5(3)(2) M/S. Trigent Software Ltd. Room No.573, Aayakar Bhavan,5Th Floor 201, Vastushilp Annex, 11 Floor Mumbai-400 020. Vs. Above Hdfc Bank, Gamadia Colony Rd. Tardeo, Mumbai-400 020. Pan:Aabct 2852 P Co.Sno./13&14/Mum/2017 वष"/Assessment Year:2006-07 & 2007-08 ) (Arising Out Of आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं/ Ita No.3629/Mum/2015&7668/Mum/13: िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" M/S. Trigent Software Ltd. Dcit-5(3)(2) Tardeo, Mumbai-400 020. Vs. Mumbai-400 020. Revenue By: Shri Dharam Veer Singh-Dr Assessee By: D.V. Lakhani-Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 06.06.2017 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 06.06.2017 आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आयकर 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 सद"य सद"य, राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार अनुसार/ Per Rajendra A.M. लेखा लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Challenging The Orders Dated 22.10.2013 & 31.03.2015 Of The Cit(A),The Assessing Officer (Ao)And The Assesse Have Filed Appeals/Cross Objections For The Above Mentioned Two Years. Assessee-Company Is Engaged In The Business Of Development Of Software.

For Appellant: D.V. Lakhani-ARFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Veer Singh-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 30Section 37