Section 143(3A) of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.270

Section 143(3A) 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(3A) is Saurashtra Cement and Chemical Industries Ltd. v. CIT (213 ITR 523), cited in 311 of the 435 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 143(3A)

Saurashtra Cement and Chemical Industries Ltd. v. CIT
213 ITR 523 · 1995 · High Court
311
citing judgments

Expenditure is deductible in the year it is determined and crystallised as a liability, even if it relates to a transaction of an earlier year, provided accounts are maintained on a mercantile basis.

319 ITR 306 (SC); CIT v. Vinay Cement Ltd.
84 Taxmann.com 185 · 2017 · Supreme Court
300
citing judgments

Employee and employer contributions towards Provident Fund (PF) and Employees' State Insurance (ESI) are allowable deductions under sections 36(1)(va) and 43B, respectively, if deposited on or before the due date for filing the return of income under section 139(1), even if paid after the due date prescribed under the respective welfare legislation.

Textile Machinery Corporation Ltd. v. CIT
107 ITR 195 · 1977 · Supreme Court
165
citing judgments

A new industrial undertaking is not considered a reconstruction of an existing business for tax deduction purposes if it is a separate, independent production unit manufacturing commercially tangible products that can operate without losing its identity in the old business. The transfer and substantial use of assets and manpower from an old business to a new one may indicate reconstruction.

7.14 In CIT v. Gwalior Rayon Silk Mfg. Co. Ltd.
196 ITR 149 · 1992 · Supreme Court
120
citing judgments

Incentive provisions in the Income-tax Act, particularly those granting deductions for new industrial undertakings, must be construed liberally to achieve their legislative purpose. This principle guides the interpretation of conditions such as what constitutes a 'new undertaking' versus a 'splitting up or reconstruction' of an existing business for claiming deductions.

Union of India v. Kumudini N. Dalal
249 ITR 219 · 2001 · Supreme Court
89
citing judgments

Consistency must be maintained in income-tax proceedings when the facts are not different, even though res judicata does not strictly apply. A consistent view taken in a particular year should not be departed from in subsequent years without contrary material.

CIT v. Tata Services Ltd.
122 ITR 594 · 1980 · High Court
76
citing judgments

A right to purchase property under an agreement to sell is a capital asset as defined under Section 2(14) of the Income-tax Act. The relinquishment or extinguishment of such a right constitutes a transfer of a capital asset, the consideration for which is taxable as capital gains.

Maddi Venkataraman & Co. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT
229 ITR 534 · 1998 · Supreme Court
72
citing judgments

Expenditure incurred for a purpose prohibited by law or in violation of another statute is not deductible as business expenditure under Section 37(1) as it is against public policy. The Explanation to Section 37 reinforces that such expenditure is deemed not for business.

Revenue (K.A. Ramaswamy Chettiar v. CIT
220 ITR 657 · 1996 · High Court
67
citing judgments

An assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue, justifying revision under Section 263, if the Assessing Officer fails to make necessary inquiries or examine materials provided by the assessee, leading to a routine assessment.

CIT v. Kap Scan and Diagnostic Centre (P.) Ltd.
344 ITR 476 · 2012 · High Court
58
citing judgments

Payment of commission to doctors for referring patients to diagnostic centers or providing gifts, freebies, or hospitality to medical practitioners by pharmaceutical companies is against public policy and cannot be allowed as a business expenditure under Section 37(1). Demanding such benefits is unethical on the part of doctors, and paying them is equally unethical on the part of companies.

Somasundaram and Bros. v. CIT
238 ITR 939 · 1999 · High Court
53
citing judgments

Interest paid on borrowed funds is not allowable as a deduction under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act to the extent such funds are diverted to provide interest-free advances for non-business purposes, such as to sister concerns or promoter companies.

Judgments on Section 143(3A)

M/S. Sundaram Finance Holdings Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, CC-3(1), Chennai

Appeal stand allowed to the extent of correct adoption of cost of investments

ITA 1215/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1211/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Acit M/S. Sundaram Finance Holdings Ltd. बनाम/ Corporate Circle-3(1), 21, Patullos Road, Mount Road, Vs. Chennai. Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacs-3116-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1215/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2018-19) M/S. Sundaram Finance Holdings Ltd. Acit बनाम/ 21, Patullos Road, Mount Road, Corporate Circle-3(1), Vs. Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacs-3116-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)-Ld. Ar (Virtual) " थ"कीओरसे/Revenue By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25-09-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09-10-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)-Ld. AR (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14A

ACIT, Nungambakkam, Chennai vs. Sundaram Finance Holdings Limited, Chennai

Appeal stand allowed to the extent of correct adoption of cost of investments

ITA 1211/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1211/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Acit M/S. Sundaram Finance Holdings Ltd. बनाम/ Corporate Circle-3(1), 21, Patullos Road, Mount Road, Vs. Chennai. Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacs-3116-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1215/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2018-19) M/S. Sundaram Finance Holdings Ltd. Acit बनाम/ 21, Patullos Road, Mount Road, Corporate Circle-3(1), Vs. Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacs-3116-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)-Ld. Ar (Virtual) " थ"कीओरसे/Revenue By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25-09-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09-10-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)-Ld. AR (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14A

A 1235 Madurai Taluk Agricultural Producers Co-Operative Marketing Society Limited, Madurai vs. NFAC, Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 656/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.656/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-2019) A 1235 Madurai Taluk Agricultural Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Producers Co-Operative Marketing Non Corporate Ward 1(1) Society Limited, Madurai. 31, Visuvasapuri 3Rd Street, Gnanaolipuram, Madurai 625 016. [Pan: Aaaaa 9671J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, (Erode) Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Arv Srinivasan,Irs, Adl Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 20.06.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.08.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri () This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi In Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1051232891 (1) Dated 24.03.2023. The Assessment Was Framed By The Additional/Joint /Deputy/Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax / Income-Tax Officer, National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 143(3A) & 143(3B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) For The Assessment Year 2018-19 Vide Order Dated 07.04.2021. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, (Erode) AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri ARV Srinivasan,IRS, Adl CIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(2)(e)