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

Aa 293 Panahalli Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society Limited, Erode vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Erode

In the result, the appeals filed in ITA Nos

ITA 2020/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2020, 2021 & 2022/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21 Aa 293 Panahalli Primary Agricultural Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Cooperative Credit Society Limited, Ward 2(1), 1, Panakkahally, Thalavady Post, Erode. Erode 638 461. [Pan: Aacaa1566A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. A. Vijayalakshmi, C.A. (Virtual) ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 30.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11.11.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders All Dated 27.06.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2020-21 Towards Disallowance Of Deduction Claimed Under Section 80P Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short], Levy Of Penalty Under Section 270A Of The Act & Levy Of Penalty Under Section 272(1)(D) Of The Act By Rejecting The Prayer Of Condonation Of Delay In Filing The Appeals Before The Ld. Cit(A).

For Appellant: Ms. A. Vijayalakshmi, C.A. (Virtual)For Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 144Section 270ASection 272(1)(d)Section 80P