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)

DCIT 20(2), Mumbai vs. Kokan Mercantile Co Op Bank Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 281/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jul 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Sh.Rajendra & C.N. Prasadआयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./281/Mum/2015,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2011-12 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Dcit-20(2) M/S. Kokan Mercantile Co-Op Bank Ltd. Room No.217, 2Nd Floor 1St Floor, Harbour Crest Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel Vs. Mazgaon Mumbai-400 012. Mumbai-400 010. Pan:Aaaak 2527 P (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By:Shri Sanjeev Kashyap-Sr. Ar Assessee By: Shri M. Subramanian सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 28.07.2016 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 28.07.2016 आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश 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) "" केकेकेके अनुसार अनुसार अनुसार Per Rajendra, Am- अनुसार राजे"" "" "" लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे लेखा लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे राजे Challenging The Order,Dated 31/10/2014 Of The Cit (A)-29, Mumbai, The Assessing Officer(Ao) Has Filed The Present Appeal. 2.Assessee-Bank,Filed Its Return Of Income On 28/09/2011,Declaring Total Income At Rs.3.64 Crores.Later On, It Filed A Revised Return On 11/09/2012, Declaring Income Of Rs. 2.68 Crores.The Ao Completed The Assessment On 28/02/2014,Under Section 143 (3) Of The Act Determining The Income Of The Assessee At Rs.7.53 Crores.

For Appellant: Shri M. SubramanianFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Kashyap-Sr. AR
Section 143Section 145(2)Section 254(1)

DCIT 8(3), Mumbai vs. Towers Watson India P.Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 4565/MUM/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: S/Shri Rajendra & C.N. Prasadआयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita/4565/Mum/2014,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Years: 2004-05 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Dcit-8(3), M/S. Towers Watson India Pvt. Ltd. Room No.217, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. (Formerly Known As Watson Wyatt India Marg, Pvt. Ltd.) Vs. Solitaire Corporate Park, Building No.5, 1St Mumbai-400 020. Floor, Andheri-Kurla Raod, Andheri (E) Mumbai-400 093. Pan:Aaacg 2955 K (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By:Shri N. Sathya Moorthy-Dr Assessee By: None सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 18.07.2016 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 27.07.2016 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 21.4.2004 Of Cit(A)-18 Mumbai, The Assessing Officer (A.O.) Has Filed The Present Appeal.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri N. Sathya Moorthy-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 254(1)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

ACIT 25(3), Mumbai vs. Punit Construction Co., Mumbai

ITA 228/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Sh. Rajendra & Pawan Singhआयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./228/Mum/2014, िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year:2010-11 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Acit-25(3) M/S. Punit Construction Co. Agarwal Residency, Shankar Lane, 308, C-11, Bandra-Kurla Complex Vs. Kandivali (W),Mumbai-67. Bandra (E),Mumbai-400 051. Pan:Aaafp 1231 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri M. Dayasagar-Dr Assessee By: Dr. K.Shivram-Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 29.06.2016 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement:27.07.2016 आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश देश आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम क" क" धारा धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त देश देश 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 11.10. 2013 Of Cit(A)-35,Mumbai The Assessing Officer (Ao) Has Filed The Present Appeal.Assessee-Firm Is Engaged In Business As Builder & Developer.It Filed Its Return Of Income On 19.9.2010,Declaring Total Income At Rs.33.91 Lakhs.The Ao Completed The Assessment On 7.3.2013,U/S. 143(3) Of The Act,Determining The Income Of The Assessee At Rs.19.21 Crores.

For Appellant: Dr. K.Shivram-ARFor Respondent: Shri M. Dayasagar-DR
Section 143(3)Section 254(1)