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)

Smt. Neeta Rai, Bhopal vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-1, Bhopal

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 684/IND/2017[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore08 Jan 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 250

Chitra Earth Movers, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 46(3), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 820/KOL/2017[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Nov 2017AY 2004-05
Section 147Section 153(3)

M/S K C Mercantile vs. Deputy Commissioner of It

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA/292/2016HC Rajasthan07 Nov 2017
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153(2)Section 68

DCIT, Circle - 48, Kolkata vs. Sanjay Jaiswal, Howrah

In the result, the cross objection of the assessee is allowed , appeals of the assessee and revenue are dismissed as infructuous

ITA 1649/KOL/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Mar 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: : Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Gopal Ram Sharma, Advocate, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Debasish Lahiri, JCIT, ld. Sr.DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153(3)Section 254

American Hotel & Lodging Education Institute ( Erlier Knwon As Eductional Institute of American Hotel & Motel Association ), Mumbai vs. Adi T (It)1(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed accordingly

ITA 6796/MUM/2010[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2015AY 1999-00
For Appellant: Shri J.D.MistryFor Respondent: Shri A.Ramachandran
Section 10Section 153Section 250Section 254Section 263Section 264Section 92C

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Cochin vs. M/S.India Sea Foods, Thoppumpady, Cochin

ITA/128/2010HC Kerala17 Jan 2011
For Respondent: ---------------
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 154(3)Section 80Section 80H

Sahara India (Firm), Lucknow vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-I & Anr

In the result, both the appeals are allowed to the extent

CIVIL APPEAL No. 2783/2008Supreme Court11 Apr 2008

Bench: An Order Is Made, Is Generally Read Into The Provisions, Particularly When The Order Has Adverse Civil Consequences - Power Conferred On A Statutory Body Or Tribunal May Be Administrative Or Quasi-Judicial - However, There Is No General Rule Of Universal Application As To Its G ~Pplicability - With Regard To Its Application Express Language, Basic Scheme Of The Provision Conferring The Power, Nature Of Power Conferred, Its Purpose & Final Effect 427 H

Section 142Section 8

M/S Sahara India (Firm) Lucknow vs. Commnr. of Income Tax, Central-I

In the result, both the appeals are allowed to the extent

C.A. No.-002783-002783 - 2008Supreme Court11 Apr 2008

Bench: The Three-Judge Bench In View Of A Common Order Dated 14Th December, 2006, Passed By A Two-Judge Bench Of This Court. The Order Reads As Follows: "When The Matter Was Taken Up, Learned Counsel For The Petitioner Placed Reliance On A Decision Of This Court In Rajesh Kr. & Ors. Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax & Ors. According To Learned Counsel For The Petitioner, Before Any Direction Can Be Issued Under Section 142 (2A) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ’The Act’) For Special Audit Of The Accounts Of The Assessee, There Has To Be A Pre-Decisional Hearing & An Opportunity Has To Be Granted To The Assessee For The Purpose. A Close Reading Of The Decision Shows That The Observations In This Regard Appear To Have Been Made In The Context Of The Assessments In Terms Of Section 158 Bc (Block Assessment) Of The Act. Such Assessments Are Relatable To A Case When Raid Has Been Conducted At The Premises Of An Assessee. Had That Been So, Limited To The Facts Involved In That Case, We Would Have Negatived The Contentions Of Learned Counsel For The Petitioner. But, Certain Observations Of General Nature Have Been Made. The Effect Of These Observations Appear To Be That In Every Case Where The Assessing Officer Issues A Direction In Terms Of Section 142 (2A) Of The Act, The Assessee Has To Be Heard Before Such Order Is Passed. This Does Not Appear To Us To Be The Correct Position

For Respondent: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL-I & ANR
Section 142Section 158Section 288

C I T Jodhpur vs. Ramesh Chand Soni

ITA/42/2004HC Rajasthan21 Sept 2004
Section 142Section 153(3)Section 158Section 158BSection 158B(1)

Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Saraspur Mills Ltd

ITR/202/1989HC Gujarat13 Feb 2001

Rajinder Nath Etc vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi

Appeals are allowed, the judgment dated September 17

CIVIL APPEAL No. 1864/1972Supreme Court13 Aug 1979

Bench: 2 Judges