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)

Saloni Jewellers Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. National E-Assessment Centre-Delhi, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1003/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1003/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Saloni Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ National E-Assessment 4Th Floor, 80-80B Patwa Centre-Delhi. Vs. Chawl, Zaveri Bazar, Mumbai-400002. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aagcs5432B (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Rutuja Pawar/Ms Sneha More Revenue By: Dr. Kishore Dhule (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 23/08/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Company Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/(Nfac), Delhi Dated 07.02.2023 For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Pointed Out That The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Has Passed Impugned Order Ex-Parte Qua Assessee. It Is Noted That The Assessee Is A Private Limited Company Engaged In The Business Of Trading & Manufacturing Jewelry Like Silver & Gold Items. The Appellant Filed Original Return Of Income U/S. 139(1) On 26.10.2018 Declaring Total Income As “Nil” For A.Y. 2018-19. The Assessee/Appellant Has Taken Loans From State Bank Of India Whereby The Account Amounting To Rs.129,87,70,130/- (Approximately) Was Classified As Declared As Non-Performing Asset (Npa Category) On 28.07.2015. Therefore, According To Ld. Ar, The Appellant Is A Npa

For Appellant: Ms. Rutuja Pawar/Ms Sneha MoreFor Respondent: Dr. Kishore Dhule (DR)
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 69

Income Tax Officer, Ward-Mahasamund, Mahasamund vs. Smt. Nirmala Devi Shrishrimal, Mahasamund

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our observations herein above

ITA 197/RPR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur31 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.197/Rpr/2022 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Income Tax Officer, Vs Smt. Nirmala Devi Shrishrimal, Ward-Mahasamund, 31, M.B. Building, Gandhi Chowk, Chhattisgarh Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh Pan No. : Ajgps 0562 G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Sh. Amit M. Jain, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Sh. Simran Bhullar, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 18.07.2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am : The Present Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeals Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 29.08.2023 For The Assessment Year 2018-19. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- 1. On The Facts & The Circumstances Of The Case Whether The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Was Justified In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.3,12,98,657/- U/S 68 Of The I.T. Act, 1961 Without Calling For Remand Report From The Ao On The Issue Of Unexplained Increase In Capital U/S 68 Of The Act. 2. Any Other Grounds That May Be Adduced At The Time Of Hearing. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Assessee Is An Individual Has Filed Her Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2018-19 On 30Th March, 2019, Showing A Total Income Of Rs.7,03,830/-. The Case Of Assessee Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny Assessment Under E- Assessment Scheme, 2019 On The Issue Of Share Capital/Other Capital.

For Appellant: Sh. Amit M. Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Simran Bhullar, CIT(DR)
Section 143Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 68

Verticurl Marketing Private Limited, Coimbatore vs. The Drp -2, Bengaluru

ITTPA 25/CHNY/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./It(Tp)A No.25/Chny/2021 (िनधा<रणवष< / Assessment Year: 2016-17) M/S.Verticurl Marketing Private Limited Dcit Tower B, 1St Floor, India Land Tech Park बनाम Corporate Circle-2, Chil Sez Area Keeranatham, Coimbatore. / Vs. Sarvampatti, Coimbatore-641 035. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Aadcv-2270-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : ( !थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms. Arati Vissanji (Advocate) – Ld.Ar !थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri A. Sasikumar (Cit) – Ld.Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20-07-2023 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27-07-2023 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year(Ay) 2016-17 Arises Out Of Final Assessment Order Passed By Ld. Assessing Officer, National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi [Ao] U/S.143(3) R.W.S 144C(13) R.W.S 143(3A) & 143(3B) Of The Act On 31-03-2021 Pursuant To The Directions Of Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel-2, Bengaluru U/S 144C(5) Dated 26-02-2021. Since The Assessee Carried Out Certain International Transactions With Its Associated Enterprises (Aes), The Same Were 2 It(Tp)A No. 25/Chny/2021

For Appellant: Ms. Arati Vissanji (Advocate) – Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar (CIT) – Ld.DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

M/S Edac Engineering Limited, Chennai vs. CIT, Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 187/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.187/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Edac Engineering Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of ‘Spic House’, 88 Mount Road, Income Tax, Guindy, Chennai 600 032. Corporate Circle 2(1), [Pan:Aabcs0321G] Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : None ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 28.03.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.04.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), (National Faceless Appeal Centre) [Nfac], Delhi Dated 08.12.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2018-19 Showing Total Income Of ₹.8,28,89,780/- On 09.10.2018. The Case Has Been Selected For Scrutiny. After Following Due Procedure, The Assessing Officer Has Completed The 2

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)