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)

M/S Seaward Developers (P) Ltd., Panvel vs. ITO, Ward - 7(2)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the AO stands dismissed

ITA 2583/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jan 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: S/Sh. Rajendra & Sandeep Gosainआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.2583/M/2013,िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year-2006-07 M/S. Seaward Developers (P) Ltd. Income Tax Officer C/O., Sajid Murghey,7/14,Bushra Park Ward-7(2)(2)Aayakar Bhavan 52-Bunglow Area,Panvel-410 206 Vs Maharshi Karve Marg Pan:Aaics 4655 E Mumbai-400 020. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) आयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.2545/M/2013,िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year-2009-10 Income Tax Officer M/S. Seaward Developers (P) Ltd. Ward-7(2)(2), Mumbai. Vs Panvel-410 206. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) िनधा"रती ओर से/Assessee By : Shri A.K. Sharma-Ar राज" की ओर से/ Revenue By : S/Shri Sachidanand Dubey & Aarsi Prasad (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 16-11-2015 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 01.01.2016 आयकर अिधिनयम,1961 1961 की धारा 254 254(1)के अ"ग"त आदेश 1961 1961 254 254 Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा सद" राजे" के अनुसार Per Rajendra, Am- Challenging The Orders Of Cit(A)-13, Mumbai The Assessee & The Assessing Officer (Ao) Have Filed Appeals For The Above Mentioned Two Assessment Years (Ay.S).

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Sharma-ARFor Respondent: S/Shri Sachidanand Dubey and Aarsi Prasad (DR)
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 80I

ACIT 9(1), Mumbai vs. Envision Investment and Finance P. Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal of the AO is dismissed

ITA 8041/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jan 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Sh. Rajendra & Sandeep Gosainअपील संसंसंसं/./././.Ita /8041/Mum/2011, िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year-2008-09 आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील Acit-Range-9(1) Envision Investment & Finance Pvt. Ltd.402, 4Th Floor, Vyapar Room No.223, Aayakar Bhavan M.K. Road Vs Bhavan,386/370, Narsi Natha Mumbai-400 020. Street, Masjid (W),Mumbai-9. Pan: Aaace 2990 G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) आयकर अपील संसंसंसं/./././.Ita /7896/Mum/2011, िनधा"रण आयकर अपील वष" / Assessment Year-2008-09 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" Envision Investment & Finance Pvt. Acit-Range-9(1) Ltd., Masjid (W) Mumbai-400 020. Mumbai-400 009. Vs (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) िनधा"रती ओर से/Assessee By : Shri S.C. Tiwari & Ms. Rutuja N.Pawar राज" की ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Manjunath R. Swamy सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 04-11-2015 घोषणा की तारीख/ Date Of Pronouncement: 01.01. 2016 आयकर अिधिनयम,1961 की धारा 254(1)के अ"ग"त 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 12.09.2011 Of The Cit(A)-19,Mumbai,The Assessee & The Assessing Officer(Ao)Have Filed Cross-Appeals For Above Mentioned Assessment Year (Ay.).

For Appellant: Shri S.C. Tiwari & Ms. Rutuja N.PawarFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath R. Swamy
Section 143(3)Section 254(1)

Envision Investment Consultants P. Ltd( Formerly Called Envison Investment and Fiance P.Ltd), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 9(1), Mumbai

Appeal of the AO is dismissed

ITA 7896/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jan 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Sh. Rajendra & Sandeep Gosainअपील संसंसंसं/./././.Ita /8041/Mum/2011, िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year-2008-09 आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील Acit-Range-9(1) Envision Investment & Finance Pvt. Ltd.402, 4Th Floor, Vyapar Room No.223, Aayakar Bhavan M.K. Road Vs Bhavan,386/370, Narsi Natha Mumbai-400 020. Street, Masjid (W),Mumbai-9. Pan: Aaace 2990 G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) आयकर अपील संसंसंसं/./././.Ita /7896/Mum/2011, िनधा"रण आयकर अपील वष" / Assessment Year-2008-09 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" Envision Investment & Finance Pvt. Acit-Range-9(1) Ltd., Masjid (W) Mumbai-400 020. Mumbai-400 009. Vs (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) िनधा"रती ओर से/Assessee By : Shri S.C. Tiwari & Ms. Rutuja N.Pawar राज" की ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Manjunath R. Swamy सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 04-11-2015 घोषणा की तारीख/ Date Of Pronouncement: 01.01. 2016 आयकर अिधिनयम,1961 की धारा 254(1)के अ"ग"त 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 12.09.2011 Of The Cit(A)-19,Mumbai,The Assessee & The Assessing Officer(Ao)Have Filed Cross-Appeals For Above Mentioned Assessment Year (Ay.).

For Appellant: Shri S.C. Tiwari & Ms. Rutuja N.PawarFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath R. Swamy
Section 143(3)Section 254(1)

Tata Sons Ltd, Mumbai vs. Jt CIT Sp RG 1, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4307/MUM/2011[1993-94]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jan 2016AY 1993-94

Bench: S/Sh. Rajendra & Sandeep Gosainआयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं/.Ita No.9096 & 9097/Mum/2010, िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष"/Assessment Year-1992-93 & 1993-94 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Dcit-2(3), M/S. Tata Sons Ltd. Room No.-555 Vs. Bombay House, 24, Homi Modi Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai Street, Fort, Mumbai-400 001. Pan No.Aaact 4060 A (अपीलाथ" /Assessee ) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपील संसंसंसं/.Ita No. 4307/Mum/2011 (Assessment Year:1993-94) आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील M/S. Tata Sons Ltd. Dcit-2(3), Fort, Mumbai-400 001. Vs. Room No.-555 Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai. (अपीलाथ" /Assessee ) (""यथ" / Respondent) िनधा"रती िनधा"रती िनधा"रती ओर िनधा"रती ओर ओर सेसेसेसे/Assessee By :Sh. Dinesh Vyas-Ar ओर राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By :Sh. Manjunatha R. Swamy-Cit-Dr सुनवाई सुनवाई क" क" तारीख तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 18- 11 -2015 सुनवाई सुनवाई क" क" तारीख तारीख घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 01.01.2016 आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग" अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम क" क" धारा धारा अ"तग" अ"तग" आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) 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 Orders Dt.5.5.10 & 7.10.2010 Of The Cit(A)-Vi, Mumbai The Assessing Officer(Ao)Has Filed The Present Appeals.The Assessee Has Challenged The Order Of Cit-2, Dated 6.7.2010,Passed U/S.263 Of The Act.As All The Appeals Are Related With The Similar Issue,So For Sake Of Convenience We Are Adjudicating All The Three Appeals By A Single Common Order.

For Appellant: Sh. Dinesh Vyas-ARFor Respondent: Sh. Manjunatha R. Swamy-CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 263Section 80H

DCIT 2(3), Mumbai vs. Tata Sons Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 9096/MUM/2010[1992-93]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jan 2016AY 1992-93

Bench: S/Sh. Rajendra & Sandeep Gosainआयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं/.Ita No.9096 & 9097/Mum/2010, िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष"/Assessment Year-1992-93 & 1993-94 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Dcit-2(3), M/S. Tata Sons Ltd. Room No.-555 Vs. Bombay House, 24, Homi Modi Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai Street, Fort, Mumbai-400 001. Pan No.Aaact 4060 A (अपीलाथ" /Assessee ) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपील संसंसंसं/.Ita No. 4307/Mum/2011 (Assessment Year:1993-94) आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील M/S. Tata Sons Ltd. Dcit-2(3), Fort, Mumbai-400 001. Vs. Room No.-555 Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai. (अपीलाथ" /Assessee ) (""यथ" / Respondent) िनधा"रती िनधा"रती िनधा"रती ओर िनधा"रती ओर ओर सेसेसेसे/Assessee By :Sh. Dinesh Vyas-Ar ओर राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By :Sh. Manjunatha R. Swamy-Cit-Dr सुनवाई सुनवाई क" क" तारीख तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 18- 11 -2015 सुनवाई सुनवाई क" क" तारीख तारीख घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 01.01.2016 आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग" अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम क" क" धारा धारा अ"तग" अ"तग" आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) 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 Orders Dt.5.5.10 & 7.10.2010 Of The Cit(A)-Vi, Mumbai The Assessing Officer(Ao)Has Filed The Present Appeals.The Assessee Has Challenged The Order Of Cit-2, Dated 6.7.2010,Passed U/S.263 Of The Act.As All The Appeals Are Related With The Similar Issue,So For Sake Of Convenience We Are Adjudicating All The Three Appeals By A Single Common Order.

For Appellant: Sh. Dinesh Vyas-ARFor Respondent: Sh. Manjunatha R. Swamy-CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 263Section 80H