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)

Shivani Gupta, Delhi vs. Ward 70(1), New Delhi

In the result, the assessee gets further relief of Rs

ITA 7074/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.7074/धिल्ली/2025 (नि.व. 2017-18) Shivani Gupta, 50, Second Floor, Vigyan Vihar, Delhi 110092 ...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant Pan: Afmpg-9292-B बिाम Vs. Ward-70(1), R. No. 1009, E-2, Civic Centre, ..... प्रनिवादी/Respondent New Delhi 110002 अपीलार्थी द्वारा/Appellant By : Shri V. Raj Kumar, Advocate प्रधििािीद्वारा/Respondent By : Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr सुिवाई की निथर्थ/ Date Of Hearing : 16/12/2025 घोषणा की निथर्थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 12/03/2026 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Additional/Joint Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-4, Chennai (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Cit (A)’) Dated 10.09.2025, For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Appeal Is Time Barred By 3 Days. The Assessee Has Filed An Application Supported By An Affidavit Citing Reasons Causing Delay In Filing Of Appeal. After Perusal Of The Same, I Am Satisfied That Delay In Filing Of Appeal Is Not Intentional, The Delay Has Been Caused For The Reasons Stated In Petition Which Appears To Be Bonafide. Thus, Delay In Filing Of Appeal Is Condoned & Appeal Is Admitted For Decision On Merits.

For Appellant: Shri V. Raj Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 69A

Ramco Systems Ltd., Rajapalayam vs. ACIT, Corporate Circle, Madurai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly-allowed

ITTPA 33/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.: 33/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21 Ramco Systems Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner 47, Psk Nagar, Vs. Of Income Tax, Kumarasamy Raja Nagar, Corporate Circle, Rajapalayam – 626 108. Madurai Pan: Aabcr 2076B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri S. Muralidhar, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02.03.2026 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R Per George George K: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 25.07.2024 Passed U/S.143(3) R.W.S144C(13) R.W.S.144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2020-21. 2. The Assessee Is A Company Established In The Year 1997. The Assessee Is A Software Product Company Engaged In The Business Of It(Tp)A No.33/Chny/2024 :- 2 -: Development & Selling Of Four Software Products Namely Erp Software, Aviation Software, Hr Software & Logistics Software. The Assessee Sells Its Software Products In India As Well As Abroad. It Is Stated That Assessee Company Has Established 14 Subsidiaries Abroad In Various Countries For Selling Its Licensed Software Products Abroad. It Is Submitted That These Subsidiaries Are The Aes Of The Assessee & Are Essential Distributors Of Assessee’S Software Products Abroad.

For Appellant: Shri S. Muralidhar, CAFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, CIT
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 92C

DCIT, Central Circle 1, Rajkot vs. R K Dreamland, Rajkot

ITA 564/RJT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot11 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/. Ita No. 555 To 560/Rjt/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Year: 2016-17 To 2021-22 (Hybrid Hearing) M/S R K Dreamland 204, Surya Arcade, Nr. Bank Of Baroda Main Branch, Mg Road, Rajkot Rajkot-360001 Vs. The Dcit, Cc-1 Aaykar Bhawan, Amruta Estate, Mg Road, Rajkot Rajkot-360001 स्थायीलेखासं/. जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No.: Aarfr4023P (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं/. Ita No. 563 & 564/Rjt/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Year: 2016-17 To 2017-18 The Dcit, Cc-1 Aaykar Bhawan, Amruta Estate, Mg Road, Rajkot Rajkot-360001 Vs. M/S R K Dreamland 204, Surya Arcade, Nr. Bank Of Baroda Main Branch, Mg Road, Rajkot Rajkot-360001 स्थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No.: Aarfr4023P (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld.Ar राजस्व की ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11/03/2026 Order Per, Bench: Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue, Pertaining To

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

DCIT, Central Circle 1, Rajkot vs. R K Dreamland, Rajkot

ITA 563/RJT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot11 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/. Ita No. 555 To 560/Rjt/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Year: 2016-17 To 2021-22 (Hybrid Hearing) M/S R K Dreamland Vs. The Dcit, Cc-1 204, Surya Arcade, Nr. Bank Of Baroda Main Branch, Mg Road, Rajkot Rajkot-360001 Aaykar Bhawan, Amruta Estate, Mg Road, Rajkot Rajkot-360001 स्थायीलेखासं/. जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No.: Aarfr4023P (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं/. Ita No. 563 & 564/Rjt/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Year: 2016-17 To 2017-18 The Dcit, Cc-1 Vs. M/S R K Dreamland Aaykar Bhawan, Amruta Estate, Mg Road, Rajkot Rajkot-360001 204, Surya Arcade, Nr. Bank Of Baroda Main Branch, Mg Road, Rajkot Rajkot-360001 स्थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No.: Aarfr4023P (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee By राजस्व की ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld.Ar : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11/03/2026 Order Per, Bench: Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue, Pertaining To

For Respondent: Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld.AR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250