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)

Vimal Pukhraj Jain, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 42(1)(5), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4305/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Smt. Renu Jauhrivimal Pukhraj Jain Income Tax Officer Ward 806, Dheeraj Enclave, Borivali East, Vs. 42(1)(5) Opp. Bhor Industries, Mumbai Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, 400066 Mumbai 400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaipj6511H (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्ााररती की ओर से / Assessee By: Shri. Pankaj Jain/ Ms. Karuna Kurle Shirdhankar /Revenue By: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 25.09.2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Renu Jauhri [A.M]: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)"] Dated 14.02.2023 Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "Act"] For Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) –Nfac Has Confirmed The Penalty Of Rs. 50,000/- Levied By The Assessing Officer By Invoking Provisions Of Section 272A(1)(D) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For Non-Compliance Of The Notices.” 3. At The Outset, It Is Notice That There Is A Delay In Filling Appeal Of 807 Days. The Assessee Has Filed An Affidavit Explaining The Reasons For The P A G E | 2

For Appellant: Shri. Pankaj Jain/ Ms. KarunaFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik SR. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 272ASection 272A(1)(d)

Landmark Developers, Satna vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Katni

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 78/JAB/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur24 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2018-19 Landmark Developers, Vs. National E-Assessment Centre Blooms Campus, N.H. 75, Panna Road, Satna-485001, M.P. Pan:Aaefl2527R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Sanjay Mishra, Advocate Revenue By: Sh. N.M. Prasad, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.09.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 18.02.2025 In Which The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Filed Against The Order Of The Ld. Ao Under Section143(3) R.W.S. 143(3A) & 143(3B) On 14.04.2021. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. That, The Assessment Order Has Been Passed By Nfac & No Designation Of Ao Is Mentioned In The Assessment Order Which Is Illegal & Unjustified. 2. That, The Digital Signature In The Assessment Order Are Not Verified & It Does Not Amount To Signing Of Assessment Order By Ao. Hence, The Whole Assessment Order Deserves To Be Set Aside. 3. That, The Ld. Cit Appeal Is Unjustified In Holding The Addition Of Rs. 30,03,163.00 By Applying Sec. 43Cb Of The Act Without The Considering The Fact That Same Is Not Applicable To The Project Started Prior To 01.04.2017. 4. That Sec 43Cb Is Applicable Only Where There Agreement Exist Between The Land Owner & Developer Whereas In The Present Case The Assessee Firm Itself Carrying

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjay Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. N.M. Prasad, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 43C

Shillong Expressway Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 22(2), Delhi

ITA 2023/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalshillong Expressway Private Dcit, Limited, Circle-22(2), 601,602, 6Th Floor, Windsor Vs. Delhi. House, Off Cst Road, Kalina, Santacruz (East), Mumbai-400098 Maharastra. Pan:Aaocs3427L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms. Hinal Shah, Ca & Ms. Nidhi Agarwa, Ca Department By Shri Pradumna Kumar Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 03.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 03.09.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (‘The Cit(A) In Short), Dated 15.01.2025 U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. At The Time Of Hearing, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Filed A Letter Dated 28.08.2025 & Expresses The Desire To Withdraw The Present Appeal As The Rectification Application Filed By The Assessee Was Allowed By The Ao & Substantial Additions / Disallowance Made Stood Rectified, Copy Of Such Order Is Also Placed On Records. Relevant Extract Of The Letter Is Reproduced As Under: “The Appellant Refers To The Captioned Appeal Fixed For Hearing Before The Hon'Ble 'G' Bench Of The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi ("Tribunal") On 03 September 2025. In This Regard, The Appellant Most Humbly Submits That Ground Nos. 1, 2 & 3 Of The Captioned Appeal Are Legal Grounds. Further, Grounds Which Pertain To The Adjustments Made On Merits As Under.

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 154Section 234CSection 250Section 40A(3)

Hil (India) Limited, Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2034/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2018-19] Hil (India) Ltd., Vs National 2Nd Floor, Core-6, E-Assessment Centre, Scope Complex, Lodhi Road, Delhi New Delhi-110003. Pan-Aaach0905Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Ankur Sharma, Ca Respondent By Shri Pradumna Kumar Singh, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 03.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 03.09.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 29.01.2025 Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Nfac/2017-18/10031966 U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 12.01.2021 Passed U/S 143(3) Read With Sections 143(3A) & 143(3B) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That The Nclt Vide Its Order Dated 30.07.2025 In Cp (Ib) No.404/(Pb)/2024 Admitted The Petition For Commencement Of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“Cirp”) Against The Assessee Under Section 7 Of The Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“The Code”) & Also Declared Moratorium In Terms Of Section 14 Of The Code. Further, The Adjudicating Authority Has Been Directed Appoint Interim Resolution Professional & To Take Necessary Steps As Per Ibc.

Section 14Section 143(3)Section 250Section 7