Section 153(3) of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.286

Section 153(3) falls under section 153 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which corresponds to section 286 (Time limit for completion of assessment, reassessment and recomputation) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 286 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 153(3) is Commissioner of Income Tax v. Roca Bathroom Products (P) ltd. (445 ITR 537), cited in 269 of the 171 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 153(3)

Commissioner of Income Tax v. Roca Bathroom Products (P) ltd.
445 ITR 537 · 2022 · High Court
269
citing judgments

The time limit for the Assessing Officer to pass a final assessment order under Section 144C(13) following directions from the Dispute Resolution Panel is determined by the specific provisions of Section 153, particularly Section 153(2A).

Shelf Drilling 4. In ACIT (International Taxation) v. Shelf Drilling Ron Tappmeyer Ltd.
177 Taxmann.com 262 · 2025 · Supreme Court
216
citing judgments

The Supreme Court has not reached a majority verdict on whether the time spent in Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) proceedings under Section 144C should be included within the overall limitation period prescribed by Section 153(3). Consequently, the legal position on the interplay between Sections 144C and 153 remains unresolved at the Supreme Court level.

Income Tax v. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (IBPS)
131 Taxmann 386 · 2003 · High Court
188
citing judgments

The Income Tax Act, 1961, does not permit the carry forward of excess expenditure of a charitable trust to be set off against future surpluses, as such trusts are governed by a self-contained code under Sections 11 to 13, not the head 'Profits and Gains of Business'. However, depreciation on fixed assets is allowable to a charitable institution registered under section 12A.

CIT v. Roca Bathroom Products (P.) Ltd.
147 Taxmann.com 224 · 2023 · Supreme Court
178
citing judgments

The grant of special leave by the Supreme Court signifies that an issue is admitted for final adjudication, and the correctness of the High Court's judgment is under scrutiny. The order granting leave does not affirm the High Court's view nor declare law; consequently, the High Court judgment loses its finality.

Shelf Drilling Ron Tappmeyer Ltd. v. ACIT\n(Intl. Taxation)
153 Taxmann.com 162 · 2023 · High Court
169
citing judgments

The time consumed in proceedings before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) under Section 144C must be subsumed within the limitation period prescribed under Section 153 for the completion of assessment, meaning these timelines are not mutually exclusive.

Sultana Begum v. Prem Chand Jain
259 ITR 449 · 2003 · Supreme Court
147
citing judgments

Section 144C(4) uses a non-obstante clause to expedite the final assessment order, requiring the Assessing Officer to pass it immediately upon acceptance or lack of objection to the TPO's order, irrespective of broader time limits under Section 153.

Aveva Solutions India LLP v. ITO
180 Taxmann.com 731 · 2025 · ITAT
123
citing judgments

An assessment order passed beyond the period of limitation prescribed by section 144C(13) read with section 153 of the Act is liable to be quashed.

Kone Elevator India P. Ltd. v. ITO
340 ITR 454 · 2012 · High Court
86
citing judgments

When taxable income has escaped assessment, the assessee's plea that no fresh material is before the assessing officer to warrant reopening is not relevant.

126 Taxman 321/259 ITR 449; & Franklin Templeton Trustee Services (P.) Ltd. v. Amruta Garg
124 Taxmann.com 326 · 2021 · Reported
78
citing judgments

When interpreting statutes, courts strive to avoid conflicting provisions and interpret the law in a manner that is not absurd, unworkable, illogical, futile, pointless, artificial, or disproportionate.

Roca Bathroom Products (P.) Ltd. v. Dispute Resolution Panel-2
127 Taxmann.com 332 · 2021 · High Court
57
citing judgments

A High Court decision is binding on subordinate authorities like the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer erred in not following a prior jurisdictional High Court ruling and a Madras High Court ruling.

Judgments on Section 153(3)

Rekh Chand Nahta, Jagdalpur, Bastar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- Jagdalpur, Bastar

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of the aforesaid observations

ITA 3/RPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur24 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.03/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Rekh Chand Nahta House No.97, Gurudwara Road, Jagdalpur, Bastar-494 001 (C.G.) Pan: Aplpn0667E .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-Jagdalpur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Veekaas S Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Tarannum Verma, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 194ASection 69A

Tejender Pal Singh Sahni, Kota vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kota

In the result ITA No. 1147/JP/2024 (A

ITA 1152/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mr. C. M. Birla, CA, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mr. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT, Ld. DR
Section 139Section 143(2)Section 144Section 153(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 69Section 80C

Guljeet Kaur Johal, Chandigarh vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 379/CHANDI/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Dr Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 379/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Guljeet Kaur Johal, Vs. Pcit-1, बनाम H.No. 107, Sector 28-A, Chandigarh Chandigarh 160019 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aklpj8345G अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent (Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Rohit Sharma, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 29.10.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25.11.2024 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, A.M.:

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

Ihs Global Private Limited, Srj Park, Tower One, Mobius Bk vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby partly allowed

ITA 295/BANG/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Sept 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Aliasgar Rampurwala, CAFor Respondent: Shri DK Mishra, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(1)Section 153(5)Section 254Section 92C

M/S Cognizant Technology Solutions India Private Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT Central Circle-1(1), Chennai

In the result the appeal is allowed

ITTPA 61/CHNY/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Vikaram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.Sasikumar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153(3)Section 254

Mankind Pharma Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Meerut

In the result, the additional Ground No

ITA 2313/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 153(3)Section 270ASection 35Section 80GSection 80I

Sri.Parayarukandy Vettath Gangadharan, Calicut vs. The DCIT Circle-1(1), Calicut

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 158/COCH/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Apr 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Kumar C., CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 150

Sri.Parayarukandy Vettath Gangadharan, Calicut vs. The DCIT Circle-1(1), Calicut

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 156/COCH/2023[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Apr 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Kumar C., CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 150

Susheel Sharma, Saharan Pur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(4), Saharnpur, Saharan Pur

The appeal is allowed and the impugned assessment order is quashed

ITA 2992/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2011-12 Susheel Sharma, Vs Ito, Aarath Bazar, Ward 3(4), Gangoh, Saharanpur. Saharanpur, Uttar Pradesh – 247 341. Pan: Awwps2125A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nitin Gulati, Advocate Revenue By : None- Adj. Application Date Of Hearing : 12.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.04.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Is Against The Order Dated 08.06.2023 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeal), Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or In Short Ld. ‘Faa’) In Appeal No.Cit(A), Muzaffarnagar/10280/2017-18 Arising Out Of An Appeal Before It Against The Order Dated 30.08.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) By The Ito, Ward 3(4), Saharanpur (Hereinafter Referred As The Ld. Ao).

For Appellant: Shri Nitin Gulati, AdvocateFor Respondent: None- Adj. Application
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153(3)Section 254Section 263Section 264

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Thiruthuraipoondi Tiruvenkadam Vivekanandam Dhinakaran, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1423/CHNY/2023[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Apr 2024AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1422 & 1423/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 1995-96 & 1996-97 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Thiruthuraipoondi Tiruvenkadam Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Vivekanandam Dhinakaran, Investigation Building, 5, Iv Street, Venkateswara Nagar, Chennai – 34. Karpagam Gardens, Adyar, Chennai 600 020. [Pan:Abkpd2771Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 25.03.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05.04.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 19, Chennai, Dated 06.10.2023 Relevant To The Assessment Years 1995-96 & 1996-97. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, Shri Ttv Dhinakaran Has Filed His Return Of Income For The Assessment Years 1995 96 & 2

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 132ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153(3)Section 158B

ACIT-3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Maharashtra Airport Development Company Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 7498/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Ms. Padmavathy S

Section 80I

Jayesh Dahyabhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT-3, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 91/AHD/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No. 91/Ahd/2021 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: 2011-2012 Jayesh Dahyabhai Patel, The Principal Commissioner 101, Saurin Tower (Ravi), Vs. Of Income Tax, Near Vasna Bus Stop, Ahmedabad-3, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad.

For Appellant: Shri B T Thakkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 153(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 68

Joseph Madathiparambil Michael vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

In the result, the issue referred to us is answered in favour of the

WP(C)/10436/2023HC Kerala04 Mar 2024

Bench: Us By The Order Of The Chief Justice, Pursuant To A Reference Order Dated 03.11.2023 Of A Learned Single Judge In The Writ Petition. 2. The Brief Facts Necessary For The Disposal Of The Writ Petition Are As Follows: The Petitioner, An Assessee Under The Provisions Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The 'It Act') Approached This Court Impugning Ext.P8 Order Dated 17.02.2023 Passed By The Assessing Authority Purportedly Giving Effect To An Order Dated 24.05.2016 Of The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, Under Section 254 Of The It Act, 1961. The Limited Ground On Which The Writ Petition Was Filed Was That The Consequential Order (Ext.P8) Passed By The Assessing Authority Was Beyond The Time Limit Specified Under Section 153(2A) Of The It Act As It Stood Prior To The Amendments With Effect From 01.06.2016. The Learned Single Judge Was Referred To A Judgment Of Another Single Judge Of This Court In Patel R.P. (Dr.) V.

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153Section 254Section 54F

Ralsons Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT-3, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 110/AHD/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Biren Shah & Shri G.M. Thakor, A.RsFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Parmar, CIT D.R
Section 143(3)Section 153(3)Section 194ISection 263Section 263(1)

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax (E)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Maharashtra Labour Welfare Board, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and Cross objections of the assessee are allowed

ITA 138/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal & Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax (E)-2(1) Mumbai ...... Appellant Vs. Maharashtra Labour Welfare Board Girni Kamgar Kareeda Bhavan, Elphinston Senapati Bapat Marg Mumbai – 400 013 Pan: Aaaam3255A ..... Respondent

For Respondent: Shri Vipul Joshi & Shri Ashok Patil, Ld.AR
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 20Section 250Section 4

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax (E)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Maharashtra Labour Welfare Board Girni Kamgar, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and Cross objections of the assessee are allowed

ITA 137/MUM/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal & Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax (E)-2(1) Mumbai ...... Appellant Vs. Maharashtra Labour Welfare Board Girni Kamgar Kareeda Bhavan, Elphinston Senapati Bapat Marg Mumbai – 400 013 Pan: Aaaam3255A ..... Respondent

For Respondent: Shri Vipul Joshi & Shri Ashok Patil, Ld.AR
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 20Section 250Section 4

Srf Limited, New Delhi vs. CIT-Ltu, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as

ITA 1499/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: your honour on Monday i.e. 04th September, 2023. In this connection, it is respectfully submitted before your honour that this appeal has been filed against the order dated 19.03.2020 passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax ("Ld. CIT") under section ("u/s") 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") with respect to the review of the assessment order dated 27.12.2017 passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) of the Act. However, as informed to us by the assessee, that it has n

Section 143(3)Section 153(3)Section 263

Winvest Holdings [India] Private Limited [ Amalgamated With Opc Asset Solutions Private Limited ], Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle -3 [2], Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 436/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.436/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S.Winvest Holdings (India)- V. The Dy. Commissioner- Pvt. Ltd., Of Income Tax, (Amalgamated With Opc- Corporate Circle-3(2), Asset Solutions Pvt. Ltd.), Chennai. Door No.4, 7Th Floor, Alsa Towers, 186 Poonamalle High Road, Kilpauk, Chennai-600 010. [Pan: Aaacw 7724 Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.K.R.Sekar, CA &For Respondent: Mr.S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 153(5)Section 263

Rahul Rajendra Jain, Amravati vs. Pr Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Nagpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 11/NAG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Hon. Vice- & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Hon.(Through Virtual Hearing) Rahul Rajendra Jain, Vs Pr.Cit-1, Nagpur. Opp. Bhansali School, Kandli Road, Vrundawan Nagar, Paratwada, Dist. Amravati. Pan: Ahapj 8041 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ratan Sharma, Ca Revenue By : Shri Kailash Kanojiya, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 23/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/08/2023 O R D E R Per Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Ratan Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kailash Kanojiya, Sr.DR
Section 153(3)Section 263

ACIT, Central Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Sarthav Infratech, Ahmedabad

ITSSA 509/AHD/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R Senthil Kumar

Section 143C