Section 143 of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.270

Section 143 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 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 is CIT v. Shri Samson Perinchery (392 ITR 4), cited in 417 of the 703 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 143

CIT v. Shri Samson Perinchery
392 ITR 4 · 2017 · High Court
417
citing judgments

A penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act is unsustainable if it is initiated on one limb (e.g., concealment of income) but ultimately levied on the other limb (e.g., furnishing inaccurate particulars). This also applies if the initial penalty notice is vague or ambiguous regarding the specific charge.

CIT v. Nirma Chemical Works Ltd.
309 ITR 67 · 2009 · High Court
149
citing judgments

An assessment order is not erroneous or prejudicial under Section 263 merely because it is silent on a claim or lacks explicit reasons for its acceptance. Revision under Section 263 is impermissible if the Assessing Officer has taken a plausible view, even if the PCIT holds a different opinion.

Union of India v. Dharamendra Textile Processors
13 SCC 369 · 2008 · Supreme Court
139
citing judgments

For the applicability of Section 271(1)(c) penalty, the Assessing Officer must be satisfied that the assessee concealed income or furnished inaccurate particulars; however, this satisfaction is not required to be recorded in a particular manner or reduced to writing.

Commissioner of Income Tax v. Noida Toll Bridge Co. Ltd.
262 ITR 260 · 2003 · High Court
121
citing judgments

Journal entries for accepting or repaying loans and deposits, without any actual cash transaction, do not violate the provisions of Section 269SS or Section 269T of the Income Tax Act. Consequently, such transactions do not attract penalties under Section 271D or Section 271E.

ACIT v. Venkateshwar Ispat (P) Ltd.
319 ITR 393 · 2009 · High Court
97
citing judgments

An assessee company receiving share application money from identified alleged bogus shareholders cannot have this amount treated as its undisclosed income under Section 68, provided the company furnishes the shareholders' identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of transactions. The tax authorities must instead proceed against the individual shareholders.

Union of India v. Rajasthan Spg. & Wvg. Mills
13 SCC 448 · 2009 · Reported
91
citing judgments

For the imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c), the specific conditions laid down in the section must be demonstrably met. The assessee's filed return is the primary document for furnishing income particulars, and inaccuracies therein are crucial for penalty imposition.

373 (Delhi-Trib), Satkar Fincap Ltd. v. ACIT CC-21, New Delhi
52 Taxmann.com 220 · 2014 · High Court
69
citing judgments

For a valid assessment under Section 153C against an 'other person', the Assessing Officer's satisfaction note must explicitly identify seized documents or assets found during a search that specifically belong to that 'other person'. Mere association or relationship with the searched assessee, without specific findings of belonging documents or assets, is insufficient to assume jurisdiction.

CIT v. Jitendra Singh Rathore
352 ITR 327 · 2013 · High Court
39
citing judgments

Penalty orders under sections 271D and 271E passed beyond six months from the end of the month in which the assessment was completed are barred by limitation. Section 275(1)(c) is applicable to such cases, and the limitation period is not reckoned from the date of the show-cause notice.

Union of India v. Gosalia Shipping P. Ltd.
113 ITR 307 · 1978 · Supreme Court
37
citing judgments

Profits of non-residents from occasional shipping business are subject to a special levy and recovery of tax under Section 172 of the Income Tax Act. A time charter party is considered a letting of the ship when control over its working and navigation is transferred.

Modi Industries Ltd. v. CIT
216 ITR 759 · 1995 · Supreme Court
25
citing judgments

A tax demand subsists even if the assessment order is set aside, and the date of the original assessment remains the relevant date. This principle clarifies that tax payment methods do not alter the fundamental liability to pay tax based on an assessment order.

Judgments on Section 143

Roads and Bridges Development Corporation of Kerala Ltd, Ernakulam vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 2(1), Kochi, Ernakulam

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 568/COCH/2023[A.Y 2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin24 Jun 2025

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm Assessment Year: 2011-12 Roads & Bridges Development .......... Appellant Corporation Of Kerala Ltd. Preethi Building, M.V. Road, Palarivattom Ernakulam 682025 [Pan: Aabcr7841Q] Vs. Acit, Corporte Circles-2(1), Kochi .......... Respondent Appellant By: Smt. Remya S. Menon, Ca Respondent By: Shri Sundarasan S., Cit.Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.06.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 17.03.2023 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2011-12. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is A Company Which Is A Wholly Owned By Government Of Kerala Undertaking. It Is Engaged In The Business Of Construction, Development, Operation & Maintenance Of Railway Over Bridges, Highway Projects, Etc. The 2 Roads & Bridges Development Corporation Of Kerala Ltd. Original Return Of Income For Ay 2011-12 Was Filed On 28.09.2011 Declaring Loss Of Rs. 9,65,43,016/-. The Same Was Revised On 07.01.2013 At A Loss Of Rs. 5,11,71,331/-. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The Acit, Corporate Circle 2(1), Kochi Vide Order Dated 30.03.2014 At Total Income Of Rs.2,10,68,827/- Before Set Off Of Brought Forward Loss. Ultimately The Income Was Assessed At Nil Income. Subsequently, The Ao Issued A Notice U/S. 148 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) On 10.04.2015 For The Reason That Income Escaped Assessment To Tax For Following Reasons: -

For Appellant: Smt. Remya S. Menon, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sundarasan S., CIT.DR
Section 139(4)Section 143Section 148

Wsg Venture Pvt. Ltd., Kanpur vs. Dct, Circle-2(1)(1), Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 211/LKW/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow29 May 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2022-23 Wsg Venture Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Dcit, 1-59, Mig, Word Bank Barra, Circle 2(1)(1), Kanpur Kanpur-208027 Pan:Aaccw7342L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Sh. Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl. Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.05.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pcit-1, Kanpur Passed Under Section 119 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 5.12.2024 Refusing To Condone The Delay In Filing The Income Tax Return For The Assessment Year 2022-23 With The Claimed Refund Of Rs. 10,000/-. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “01. That Due To Mistake Of Counsel, The Itr For The Ay 2022-23 Could Not Be Filed Of The Assessee Company, Whereas The Certificate Of The Counsel Was Also Filed, But Ignore The Same & Rejected The Petition Moved U/S.119(2)(B) Of The Act, Which Action Of The Pr. Cit Is Contrary To Fact & Be Quashed. 02. That The Order Passed By The Pr. Cit U/S.119 Of The Income Tax Act Reject The Petition For Condonation Of Delay Moved U/S.119(2)(B) Of The Act Is Not Lawful, Bad In Law, Be Quashed. 03. That The Pr. Cit As Well As Cpc Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Arbitrarily Rejecting The Petition Of The Assessee Company To Rectify The Return Of Income, Which Should Ought To Have Done. A.Y. 2022-23 Wsg Venture Pvt. Ltd. 04. That The Order Passed By The Pr. Cit U/S 119 Dated 05.12.2024 Is Erroneous, Misconceived, Contrary To Facts, Bad In Law & Be Modified.”

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl. CIT DR
Section 10Section 115VSection 119Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 132Section 143Section 144BSection 147Section 153A