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)

Asst CIT 19(3), Mumbai vs. Eidred Joseph Pereira, Mumbai

ITA 4623/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Oct 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: S/Shri Rajendra & C.N. Prasadआयकर आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita/4623/Mum/2014,िनधा"रण अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Years: 2005-06 वष" Acit -19(3) Shri Eldred Joseph Pereira 305, Piramal Chambers , Lalbaug, El Ron Garden, 73, Tpd Iii, Vs. 30Th Road, Bandra (W) Parel, Mumbai-400 012. Mumbai-50. Pan:Aappp 8882 J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By:Shri Sathya Moorthy-Dr Assessee By: None सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 20.07.2016 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 19.10.2016 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 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 Order,Dated 15/04/2014 Of The Cit (A)-30,Mumbai, The Assessing Officer(Ao) Has Filed The Present Appeal. Assessee,An Individual, Filed His Return Of Income On 30/08/2005, Declaring Total Income At Rs.72,430/-.The Ao Completed The Assessment, U/S.143 (3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Act,On 29/12/2011,Determining His Income At Rs.73.67 Lakhs.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sathya Moorthy-DR
Section 143Section 254(1)Section 54

Alpana M Motla, Mumbai vs. DCIT 12(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1937/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Oct 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Ramit Kochar, Am Smt. Alpana M Motla, C/O. Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Roopkala, 89, M. K. Marg, Queens Tax- 12(3), Chambers, Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai Pan:Aahmp 7319P Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By .. Shri K. Shivaram, Ar Respondent By .. Shri A. K. Dhondial, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing .. 19-10-2016 .. Date Of Pronouncement 19- 10- 2016 O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Cit (Appeals)-24, Mumbai In Appeal No.Cit(A)-24/Dcit-12(3)/It-105/11-12 Dated 03-12-2012. Assessment Was Framed By The Dcit-12(3), Mumbai For The Assessment Year 2008-09 Vide His Order Dated 14-12-2010 U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’). 2. The Only Issue In This Appeal Of The Assessee Is Against The Order Of The Cit (A) In Confirming The Action Of The Ao In Treating The Excess Arising Out Of Sale Of Shares As Business Income Instead Of Treating The Same As Short Term Capital Gain As Declared By The Assessee. 3. Briefly Stated Facts Are That The Assessee Is Deriving Income From Futures & Options I.E. Derivatives From Long Term Capital Gain & Short Term Capital Gain From Sale Of Shares, Income From Other Sources & Also Profit From Speculation Business. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings The Ao Required The Assessee To Explain As To Why Income From Short Term Capital Gain Should Not Be Treated As Income From Business. The Assessee Filed Explanation Before The Ao But The Ao Noted That The Assessee Is Engaged In Systematic Activities Of Sale & Purchase Of Shares & The Shares Are Sold Within A Period Of One Day To 200 Days & Hence, The Same Partakes The Character Of Share Trading. Hence, He Treated The Short Term Capital Gain Declared By The Assessee Amounting To Rs.50,35,193/- As Business Income. Aggrieved, The Assessee Preferred Appeal

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)