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

Deepika A. Mehta, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3269/MUM/2015[1989-90]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Oct 2016AY 1989-90

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharmaआमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.3269/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :1989-1990) Deepika A. Mehta, 32, Madhuli, Vs. Dcit-Cc-23 (Now Acit, Dr. A.B.Road, Worli, Mumbai- Cc-4(1), Mumbai 400018 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Abnpm 8231 D (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Dharmesh Shah याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Dr. P. Daniel, Standing Counsel सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 08/08/2016 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 24/10/2016 आदेश / O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A) For Assessment 1989-1990, In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S.143 R.W.S.254 Of I.T.Act. 2. Ground No.1 Was Not Pressed, The Same Is, Therefore, Dismissed In Limine. 3. Ground No.2 Relates To Addition Of Rs.7,01,046/- On Account Of Unexplained Investment In Shares & Business Of The Company. 4. From The Record We Found That Addition Was Made By The Ao On The Basis Of Report Of The Chartered Accountant Found During The Course Of Search. In The First Round Of Appeal, The Tribunal Has Set Aside The Matter To The File Of Ao With The Directions For Making Further Enquiries With The Companies.

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh ShahFor Respondent: Dr. P. Daniel, Standing Counsel
Section 143

Eagle Freight Forwarders P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 1(1)(3), Mumbai

ITA 743/MUM/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: S/Shri Rajendra & C.N. Prasadआयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita/743/Mum/2013,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Years: 2004-05 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Eagle Freight Forwarders Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer-1(1) Cassinath Building Aayakar Bhavan, Mk Road 17, A.K. Nayak Marg Mumbai-400 020. Vs. Opp. New Excelsior Cinema Mumbai-400 001. Pan:Aaace 1636 P (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By:Shri Kailash Gaikwad Assessee By: Shri Surendra Nijsure सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 12.07.2016 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 12.08.2016 आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आयकर आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम क" क" धारा धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश 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 30.11.2012 Of Cit(A)-4,Mumbai The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal.Assessee-Company,Engaged In The Business Of Transportation Of Goods & Cargo,Filed Its Return Of Income 1.11.2004,Declaring Total Income At Rs.(-)44.61 Lakhs.The Assessing Officer(Ao)Completed The Assessment,U/S.143 Of The Act,On 29.12.2006 Determining Its Income At Rs.Nil After Adjusting The Losses Of The Earlier Ay.S.

For Appellant: Shri Surendra NijsureFor Respondent: Shri Kailash Gaikwad
Section 143Section 254(1)Section 36