Sub-section (1) governs processing of a return made under section 263 or in response to a notice under section 268(1). Total income or loss is computed after six adjustments: any arithmetical error; an incorrect claim apparent from information in the return; a prescribed inconsistency with information in a preceding year's return; disallowance of a loss claimed where the return for the year of the loss was furnished beyond the section 263(1) due date; disallowance of expenditure or an increase in income indicated in the audit report but not taken into account in the return; and disallowance of a deduction claimed under any provision of Chapter VIII-C where the return is furnished beyond the section 263(1) due date. The words "under section 144 or" were omitted from that last clause by Act No. 4 of 2026 with effect from 1 April 2026, so the late-filing disallowance now runs only against Chapter VIII-C deductions. Tax, interest and fee are then computed on the income so determined, the sum payable or refund due is worked out after adjusting tax deducted at source, tax collected at source, advance tax, rebate or relief under Chapter IX, self-assessment tax and any other amount paid as tax, interest or fee, an intimation is sent, and any refund is granted.
Sub-section (2) requires that before any adjustment the assessee be given a communication in writing or in electronic mode, that any response be considered, and that where no response is received within thirty days of the communication the adjustment be made and the intimation sent. Sub-section (3) requires an intimation even where the loss declared is adjusted but no tax, interest or fee is payable and no refund is due. Sub-section (4) bars any intimation after nine months from the end of the financial year in which the return is made. Sub-section (5)(a) defines an incorrect claim apparent from information in the return as one resting on an entry inconsistent with another entry, an entry for which required information has not been furnished, or a deduction exceeding a specified statutory limit expressed as an amount, percentage, ratio or fraction; clause (b) deems the acknowledgement of the return to be the intimation where nothing is payable or refundable and no adjustment has been made. Sub-sections (6) and (7) let the Board make a scheme for centralised processing, to be laid before each House of Parliament.
Sub-section (8) is the scrutiny limb. Where a return has been furnished under section 263 or in response to a section 268(1) notice, the Assessing Officer or the prescribed income-tax authority who considers it necessary or expedient to ensure that the assessee has not understated income, has not computed excessive loss and has not under-paid tax shall serve a notice requiring him, on a specified date, either to attend the Assessing Officer's office or to produce evidence in support of the return. Sub-section (9) bars that notice after three months from the end of the financial year in which the return is furnished. Sub-section (10) then requires the Assessing Officer, after hearing the evidence and taking all relevant material into account, to make an assessment of total income or loss by an order in writing and to determine the sum payable or refundable.
Sub-sections (11) to (14) restrain that order in four cases. For a research association, association or institution, or institution referred to in Schedule III (Table: Sl. Nos. 23, 24 and 25) required to file under section 263(1)(a)(iv), no order may be made without giving effect to section 11 unless the Assessing Officer has intimated the Central Government or prescribed authority of the contravention and the approval has been withdrawn or the notification rescinded. For a registered non-profit organisation the Assessing Officer satisfied of a specified violation under section 351(1) must refer the matter to the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner and may not pass the order without giving effect to the order under section 351(2)(ii)(A) or (B). For a university, college or other institution under section 45(3)(a) whose activities breach its approval conditions, he may recommend withdrawal to the Central Government after a reasonable opportunity to show cause, and the Central Government may withdraw the approval by order. Sub-section (15) reconciles the two stages: on a regular assessment under sub-section (10) or section 271, tax or interest paid under sub-section (1) is deemed paid towards it, and any refund granted under sub-section (1) in excess of what is refundable on regular assessment is deemed to be tax payable.
Why it is there
The section splits the Department's response to a return into two very different exercises. Processing under sub-section (1) is mechanical and fast, confined to six defined adjustments visible on the face of the return and its audit report, with a thirty-day right to be heard and a nine-month outer limit. Scrutiny under sub-sections (8) to (10) is judgmental and evidence-based, and is fenced by a much shorter three-month window for issuing the notice. Sub-section (15) then makes sure the two do not double-count.
Who it applies to
An assessee who has furnished a return under section 263 or in response to a notice under section 268(1)
The Assessing Officer, and the prescribed income-tax authority who may issue a notice under sub-section (8)
A research association, association or institution, or institution referred to in Schedule III (Table: Sl. Nos. 23, 24 and 25)
A registered non-profit organisation against which a specified violation under section 351(1) is alleged
A university, college or other institution approved under section 45(3)(a)
The Central Board of Direct Taxes making a centralised processing scheme
The figures, and what each one turns on
Read the condition in the same row. A figure quoted without it is a wrong answer with a citation attached.
What
Figure
The condition on it
Where
Time to respond before an adjustment is made
Thirty days
From the issue of the communication of the proposed adjustment; silence lets the adjustment be made and the intimation sent
Sub-section (2)(b)
Outer limit for an intimation on processing
Nine months
From the end of the financial year in which the return is made
Sub-section (4)
Outer limit for a scrutiny notice
Three months
From the end of the financial year in which the return is furnished
Sub-section (9)
What this means in practice
The two clocks in this section run from the same point but are very far apart: three months from the end of the financial year of filing to serve the sub-section (8) notice, nine months from the end of that year to send the intimation. Once the three months pass without a notice, the return cannot be taken into scrutiny under this section however wrong it looks. On the processing side, the six adjustments are exhaustive and two of them are triggered purely by lateness — a loss claimed where the loss year's return was late, and a Chapter VIII-C deduction where this year's return was late — so a late return can lose relief without any dispute on the merits. Since 1 April 2026 that late-filing disallowance reaches Chapter VIII-C deductions only, the reference to section 144 having been omitted. The thirty-day communication under sub-section (2) is the one chance to stop an adjustment before it becomes an intimation, and where nothing is payable or refundable and no adjustment is made, sub-section (5)(b) means the acknowledgement itself is the intimation, so there is no separate document to wait for.
An example
Illustrative only, and invented for this page. The figures are chosen to show the rule biting, not taken from any real matter.
A firm files its return four days after the section 263(1) due date, claiming a Chapter VIII-C deduction of Rs. 12 lakh and setting off a loss from an earlier year whose return was also late. On processing, both are disallowed under sub-section (1)(a)(iv) and (vi) purely because of the late filing, after a communication to which the firm does not reply within thirty days. If the intimation issues eleven months after the end of the financial year of filing, it is outside sub-section (4); and if no notice under sub-section (8) was served within three months of the end of that year, the return cannot be taken up for scrutiny under sub-section (10) either.
Where you meet this section
This is the section behind the intimation a taxpayer receives after filing, behind the adjustment communication that precedes it, and behind the notice calling on him to attend the Assessing Officer's office or produce evidence in support of the return. The assessment order that follows scrutiny is made under sub-section (10).
The words themselves
under any of the provisions of Chapter VIII-C, if the return is furnished beyond the due date specified under section 263(1)
Section 270(1)(a)(vi), the preceding words "under section 144 or" having been omitted by Act No. 4 of 2026 w.e.f. 1-4-2026, Income-tax Act, 2025.
in a case where no response is received within thirty days of the issue of such communication, such adjustments shall be made and thereafter the intimation under sub-section (1)(d) shall be sent
Section 270(2)(b), Income-tax Act, 2025.
No notice under sub-section (8) shall be served on the assessee after the expiry of three months from the end of the financial year in which the return is furnished.
Section 270(9), Income-tax Act, 2025.
What people get wrong
Confusing the two limitation periods. Nine months from the end of the financial year of filing applies to the intimation under sub-section (4); three months from that same point applies to the scrutiny notice under sub-section (9).
Reading the late-filing disallowance in sub-section (1)(a)(vi) as still covering section 144. Those words were omitted by Act No. 4 of 2026 with effect from 1 April 2026; the clause now runs only against Chapter VIII-C deductions.
Treating an adjustment as final without a hearing. Sub-section (2) requires a prior communication and consideration of the response, and only silence for thirty days lets the adjustment go through.
Waiting for an intimation where nothing is payable or refundable. Sub-section (5)(b) deems the acknowledgement of the return to be the intimation in that case, provided no adjustment was made.
Assessing a Schedule III entity or a registered non-profit organisation without the prior step. Sub-sections (11) and (13) bar the order until the approval or registration position is resolved by the Central Government, the prescribed authority, or the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner under section 351(2).
Ignoring an excess refund already granted on processing. Sub-section (15)(b) deems it tax payable once the regular assessment shows less is due.
What this replaced, and what changed
1961 provision
What changed in the move
s.143
1. The numbering a practitioner uses every day moves: '143(1)' is now 270(1), '143(2)' is now 270(8), and '143(3)' - the scrutiny assessment order - is now 270(10). Every reference in correspondence, appeals and limitation arguments has to be re-pointed. 2. The dead sixth adjustment in s.143(1)(a)(vi) (addition of income appearing in Form 26AS / 16A / 16, disapplied for assessment years from 1 April 2018) is not carried forward at all. 3. S.143(1D) - processing not necessary where a scrutiny notice has been issued, itself disapplied from assessment year 2017-18 - is gone, so nothing in the 2025 Act suspends processing because a scrutiny notice has issued. 4. The faceless assessment scheme provisions s.143(3A) to (3D) are lifted out of the assessment section into a standalone s.273 'Faceless Assessment'. 5. The itemised credits in s.143(1)(c) (s.89 relief, s.90/90A/91 relief, Part A of Chapter VIII rebate) are compressed into 'any rebate or relief allowable under Chapter IX'. 6. S.270(10) is expressly made 'subject to the provisions of sub-sections (11) and (13)', which the 1961 text achieved only through the negative wording of its provisos. 7. The exempt-entity provisos, which in 1961 named s.10(21), (22B), (23A), (23B) and the fifteenth proviso to s.10(23C), are rewritten by reference to the Schedule III Table and the registered non-profit organisation regime in s.351.
How we established this. Read s.270 of the 2025 Act against s.143 of the 1961 Act. Same marginal heading 'Assessment'. The opening words track each other exactly - 'Where a return has been made under section 139, or in response to a notice under sub-section (1) of section 142, such return shall be processed in the following manner' becomes 'Where a return has been made under section 263, or in response to a notice under section 268(1) such return shall be processed in the following manner'. The lettered mechanics of processing - (a) compute total income after adjustments, (b) compute tax, interest and fee, (c) determine sum payable or refund after credit for TDS, TCS, advance tax, relief and self-assessment tax, (d) send an intimation, (e) grant the refund - survive letter for letter as s.270(1)(a)-(e). The two provisos to s.143(1)(a) (prior intimation of adjustments, thirty-day response) become s.270(2). The Explanation defining 'an incorrect claim apparent from any information in the return' in its three sub-clauses and deeming the acknowledgement to be the intimation is reproduced word for word as s.270(5). The nine-month outer limit for the intimation reappears in s.270(4) in the same words. The s.143(2) scrutiny notice, including 'if, considers it necessary or expedient to ensure that the assessee has not understated the income or has not computed excessive loss or has not under-paid the tax in any manner', reappears as s.270(8) with its proviso of three months from the end of the financial year in which the return is furnished as s.270(9). S.143(3) and its provisos on s.10(21)/(22B)/(23A)/(23B) bodies, on specified violations by trusts, and on s.35(1)(ii)/(iii) universities become s.270(10) to (14); s.143(4) becomes s.270(15).
Rules that serve this section
Rules of the Income-tax Rules, 2026 that work section 270. Where the rule’s own heading names the section we say so; the rest are marked on reading the rule, which is our derivation and not the department’s. A rule that serves the section silently and that we have missed will not appear here.
Rule 175 — Prescribed authority for issue of notice under section 270(8)
Rule 176 — Procedure for faceless assessment, reassessment or recomputation under section 273(1) — on reading the rule
A circular binds the department, not you and not a court. Every one below was written under the 1961 Act; it reaches this section because the department’s own concordance carries the provision it names to this one.
Circular No. 10/2025 — Relaxation of time limit for processing of returns of income filed electronically which were incorrectly invalidated by CPC 2025-07-28
Circular No. 7/2025 — Relaxation of time limit for processing of valid returns of income filed electronically pursuant to order u/s 119(2)(b) of the Inc 2025-06-25
Circular No. 21/2021 — One time relaxation for verification of all income tax returns e filed for the assessment year 2020 21 which are pending for verif 2021-12-28
Circular No. 13/2020 — One time relaxation for verification of tax returns for the assessment years 2015 16 2016 17 2017 18 2018 19 and 2019 20 which are 2020-07-13
Circular No. 1/2018 — Processing of income-tax returns under section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act which were filed in Forms ITR-1 to 6 & applicability o 2018-01-10
Circular No. 2/2009 — NEW TDS and TCS Payment and Information Reporting System- Notification No. 858(E), Dated 25th March, 2009 Published in Official Ga 2009-05-21
Circular No. 6/2008 — NEW Return Forms for the Assessment Year 2008-09 - and Matters Connected thereto 2008-07-18
Circular No. 9 — 916. Clarification regarding treatment of tax paid under section 172(3)/(4) by a non-resident engaged in shipping business 2001-07-09
Circular No. 730 — 914. Whether non-resident assessees engaged in business of carriage by shipping of passengers and goods, etc., shall neither be li 1995-12-14
Circular No. 669 — Section 43B l Deduction to BE Allowed Only on Actual Payment 1993-10-25
Circular No. 668 — 900. Clarification regarding date of limitation for filing appeals 1993-10-20
Circular No. 581 — Section 43B l Deduction to BE Allowed Only on Actual Payment 1990-09-28
A notification is made under a power the Act gives and, within that power, is law. These too were made under the 1961 Act and are placed here by the department’s concordance.
Notification No. 3/2012 — Direction that the provisions of the Income-tax Act relating to processing of returns shall or shall not apply with such exception 2012-01-04
Notification No. 285 — S.O. No. 1743 (E). - In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 120 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ( 2006-10-10
Read this before you rely on it. Every decision below was decided under the Income-tax Act, 1961. It appears here because it is tagged to a 1961 provision that the department’s own mapping carries to section 270. That is an inference we have drawn, not a holding on the new section: where the words changed in the move, the reasoning may not survive. Treat this as the place to start looking, not as authority on the 2025 Act.
ACIT v Ahmedabad Urban Development AuthoritySupreme CourtCuts both waystagged s.143(3) We charge fees for our public utility work. Does that cost us charitable status under s.2(15)?
ACIT v Hotel Blue MoonSupreme Courttagged s.143(2) Is a notice under s.143(2) a jurisdictional precondition, or merely a procedural step the Assessing Officer can skip?
ACIT v Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers P LtdSupreme CourtHelps departmenttagged s.143(1) My return was only processed under 143(1). Does that stop the department reopening it later?
CIT v Laxman Das KhandelwalSupreme CourtHelps taxpayertagged s.143(2) No s.143(2) notice was issued at all. Does s.292BB save the assessment?
CIT v Vegetable Products LtdSupreme CourtHelps taxpayertagged s.143 The provision can be read two ways. Which reading wins?
Dhakeswari Cotton Mills v CITSupreme Courttagged s.143(3) Can the Assessing Officer estimate income on departmental material the assessee has never been shown?
Dy CIT v Mastech Technologies P LtdSupreme CourtHelps departmenttagged s.143(3) The AO who issued my 148 notice was transferred and his successor issued another. Is the reassessment time-barred?
GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd v ITOSupreme CourtCuts both waystagged s.143(2) You get a s.148 notice. Can you ask why — and must the officer answer?
Kalyan Kumar Ray v CITSupreme CourtHelps departmenttagged s.143(3) My assessment order does not compute the tax — the figures are only on the itns-150. Does that make the assessment bad?
Kishinchand Chellaram v CITSupreme CourtHelps taxpayertagged s.143(3) They have a letter from a bank that you have never seen. Can they use it against you?
Mangalam Publications v CITSupreme CourtHelps taxpayertagged s.143(3) You filed without books because they were seized. Is that a failure to disclose?
NFAC v Automotive Manufacturers P LtdSupreme CourtCuts both waystagged s.143(3) The faceless order came without any show-cause notice or draft order. Will it just be annulled?
P.R. Metrani v CITSupreme CourtHelps taxpayertagged s.143 Can papers seized in a search be presumed true against me in the regular assessment?
PCIT v Abhisar Buildwell P LtdSupreme CourtCuts both waystagged s.143 Search assessment for a year already completed, but nothing incriminating was found. Can the officer still add?
PCIT v Mahagun Realtors P LtdSupreme CourtHelps departmenttagged s.143(3) Is an assessment on an amalgamated company always void?
PCIT v Maruti Suzuki India LtdSupreme CourtHelps taxpayertagged s.143(2) The notice names a company that has already merged into another. Does taking part in the proceedings fix that?
Sarla Holdings P Ltd v PCITSupreme CourtHelps departmenttagged s.143(3) I did not tick s.115BAA in the return and filed Form 10-ic late. Can I still get the concessional rate?
Tin Box Company v CITSupreme CourtHelps taxpayertagged s.143 The AO never heard me but the CIT(A) did. Does the appeal cure the defect?
Vodafone Idea Ltd v ACITSupreme CourtHelps departmenttagged s.143(1) My refund is being held back because scrutiny is pending. Can the officer simply sit on it?
ACIT v Satish Kumar KeshriHigh CourtHelps taxpayertagged s.143(3) The search on me turned up nothing but the AO still made additions for an old year. Can he?
ACIT v Serajuddin & CoHigh Courttagged s.143(3) What must an approval under s.153D actually show on its face, and does last-minute bulk approval survive?
Aafreen Fatima Fazal Abbas Sayed v ACITHigh CourtHelps taxpayertagged s.143(1) I let the 30 days to appeal my 143(1) intimation lapse. Can I still go to the pcit under s.264?
Ashok Chaddha v ITOHigh CourtHelps departmenttagged s.143(2) My section 153A assessment was completed without any notice under section 143(2). Does Hotel Blue Moon make it void?
BVR Projects v Assessment UnitHigh CourtHelps taxpayertagged s.143(2) The faceless show-cause notice gave me four days to reply. Is that enough time?
Bahar Infocons P Ltd v PCITHigh CourtHelps taxpayertagged s.143(1) I over-reported income by mistake and the time to file a revised return has gone. Can it be fixed?
Bax India Ventures v CPCHigh CourtHelps taxpayertagged s.143(1)(a) CPC made a section 143(1)(a) adjustment without first putting the proposed adjustment to me. The department says my reply could not have changed…
Bharat Aluminium Company Ltd v Union of IndiaHigh CourtHelps taxpayertagged s.143(3) I asked for a personal hearing in the faceless assessment and was refused. Does the order survive?
Biswajit Deb v Union of IndiaHigh CourtHelps taxpayertagged s.143(1) The recorded reasons admit the AO had no time to verify my transactions. Is the reopening valid?
CESC Ltd v DCITHigh CourtCuts both waystagged s.143(1)(a) The Assessing Officer has issued a section 154 notice to rectify my section 143(1)(a) intimation after a scrutiny notice under section 143(2) was…
CIT v SPL Infrastructure P LtdHigh CourtHelps taxpayertagged s.143(3) My sub-contractors did not answer summons. Can the Assessing Officer disallow the whole payment to them?
Court On Its Own Motion v CITHigh CourtHelps taxpayertagged s.143(1) CPC has refused my TDS credit and adjusted the refund against an old demand. What did the Delhi High Court actually direct?
Deepak Extrusions P Ltd v DCITHigh CourtHelps taxpayertagged s.143(3) The Addl. CIT gave the AO a s.144A direction. Does that let him skip a speaking order on my objections?
EPCOS Electronic Components SA v UOIHigh CourtHelps taxpayertagged s.143(1) My return was accepted as filed and no demand was raised. Is a s.264 revision still open to me?
Flipkart India Private Limited v ACITHigh CourtHelps taxpayertagged s.143(2) Did the 2016 Office Memorandum wipe out Instruction No. 1914 and its hardship tests?
High Vista Buildcon P Ltd v NFACHigh CourtHelps taxpayertagged s.143(3) I asked NFAC for a video hearing in my appeal and never got a link. Can that order stand?
Huawei Telecommunications India P Ltd v ACITHigh CourtHelps taxpayertagged s.143(1) There is interim protection against recovery for that year. Can the department still adjust my refund?
Indira Industries v PCITHigh CourtHelps taxpayertagged s.143(3) The Commissioner has issued a section 263 show-cause notice on issues that were never part of my reassessment, more than two years after the original…
Jet Privilege Pvt Ltd v DCITHigh CourtHelps taxpayertagged s.143(1) Your refund was adjusted against an old demand. Did they have to tell you first?
K S Bilawala v PCITHigh CourtHelps taxpayertagged s.143(1) I paid tax on a receipt that was never taxable and the deadline has passed. Is that genuine hardship?
Kailashben Manharlal Chokshi v CITHigh CourtHelps taxpayertagged s.143 I disclosed a large sum in the search statement and retracted two months later. Will the retraction hold?
Kanyakaparameshwari Co-operative Society Ltd v CCITHigh CourtHelps taxpayertagged s.143(3) My co-operative society filed its return late and lost section 80P because of section 80AC. If the delay is condoned under section 119(2)(b), does…
Kunal Structure (India) Pvt Ltd v Dy CITHigh CourtHelps taxpayertagged s.143(1) My return was defective and I cured the defect ten months later. Does the s.143(2) clock run from the original filing or from the day I removed the…
PCIT v DSG Papers (P) LtdHigh CourtHelps taxpayertagged s.143(3) The addition rests on statements of ex-employees and third parties I was never allowed to question. Is the assessment good?
PCIT v Jai Shiv Shankar TradersHigh Courttagged s.143(2) If the assessee says its original return should be treated as the return in response to s.148, must the Assessing Officer still issue a fresh…
PCIT v KRBL Infrastructure LtdHigh CourtHelps taxpayertagged s.143(3) The officer accepts my lender exists but says the lender's own purchases were bogus. Do I have to explain where the lender got the money?
PCIT v Kanak Impex (India) LtdHigh CourtHelps departmenttagged s.143(3) The officer says my purchases are accommodation entries. Can he add the whole purchase, or only a percentage?
PCIT v Meenakshi Overseas Pvt LtdHigh CourtHelps taxpayertagged s.143(1) The reasons recorded just repeat what the Investigation Wing said. Is that enough to reopen?
PCIT v Sangeeta JainHigh CourtCuts both waystagged s.143(3) The Commissioner says my assessment was made without any inquiry. Is that by itself enough to revise it under s.263?
PCIT v Shiv Kumar NayyarHigh Courttagged s.143(3) Does a single, same-day approval covering many years and many cases satisfy s.153D, or does it vitiate the assessment?
Paul Mathews and Sons v CITHigh CourtHelps taxpayertagged s.143(3) Can the officer treat what I said during a survey as sworn evidence against me?
Purnima Das v Union of IndiaHigh CourtHelps taxpayertagged s.143(3) Your bank account was attached while the stay application was still pending. Was that lawful?
Raj Kumar Bothra v DCITHigh CourtHelps taxpayertagged s.143(1)(a) CPC disallowed my late-deposited pf and esi under 143(1)(a). Was a summary adjustment even open to them?
Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd v CITHigh CourtHelps taxpayertagged s.143(1)(a) Same point, in Delhi: if the recorded grounds fail, can the officer still tax an unrelated item?
S.P. Velayutham v ACITHigh CourtHelps taxpayertagged s.143(3) I admitted the tax in my return but could not pay it. Can that be prosecuted as a wilful attempt to evade payment under s.276C(2)?
SHL (India) v DCITHigh Courttagged s.143(3) If the Assessing Officer passes a final assessment order on an eligible assessee without first issuing a draft order, can s.292B save it?
Satish Kumar Bansal HUF v NFACHigh CourtHelps taxpayertagged s.143(3) I asked for a personal hearing in my faceless assessment and never got one. Is the order bad?
Saurav Chachra v CBDTHigh CourtHelps taxpayertagged s.143(1) I have a stay on my demand and they still adjusted my refund against it. Can they do that?
Shell India Markets P Ltd v ACITHigh CourtHelps taxpayertagged s.143(3) The TPO says we issued shares to our parent too cheaply. Can he tax the shortfall?
Symphony Limited v ACITHigh CourtHelps taxpayertagged s.143(2) The faceless unit finalised your assessment without issuing a draft order. Is that order good?
Tamil Nadu Magnesite Ltd v CITHigh CourtHelps taxpayertagged s.143(1)(a) The Assessing Officer has rectified my old s.143(1)(a) intimation under s.154 after already completing a s.143(3) assessment. Can he do that?
Tata Communications Ltd v Union of IndiaHigh CourtHelps taxpayertagged s.143(1) Your refund was adjusted against demands that were already stayed. Is that lawful?
Trust for Reaching the Unreached v CITHigh CourtHelps taxpayertagged s.143(1) Our audit report was not e-filed with the return and exemption was denied. Can the delay be condoned?
Vodafone M-Pesa Ltd v PCITHigh CourtHelps taxpayertagged s.143(3) Can the AO switch my valuation from dcf to nav because the nav figure suits him better?
ACIT v C RamabrahmamITATHelps taxpayertagged s.143(3) I claimed housing loan interest under s.24(b) every year. When I sell, can the same interest also go into the cost of acquisition?
ACIT v JD Ispat Pvt LtdITATHelps taxpayertagged s.143(2) Same point, at Tribunal level: can taking part in a reassessment cure a missing s.143(2) notice?
Balaka Cold Storage v ACITITATHelps taxpayertagged s.143(3) Was the officer who assessed you even authorised to, given the amount involved?
DCIT v Rajeev G KalathilITATHelps taxpayertagged s.143(3) The only thing against my supplier is that the indirect-tax authorities have put him on a list. Is that enough to make my purchase bogus?
Dixit Rice Mill v DCIT (CPC)ITATtagged s.143 Must an assessee first apply for rectification to CPC before appealing against a s.143(1) intimation?
Haresh Ghanshyamdas Makhija v ITOITATHelps taxpayertagged s.143(3) They already penalised me under 271A for keeping no books. Can they levy 271B on top?
Kailash Narayan Shridhar v DCITITATHelps taxpayertagged s.143(1)(a) CPC cut my claim in a section 143(1) intimation without ever sending me the proposed-adjustment notice. Can I get the intimation quashed on that…
Manish Kumar Vijay v ITOITATHelps taxpayertagged s.143(1) CPC added income because Form 26AS shows more receipts than my 44AD turnover. Can they do that?
Marmo Home v DCITITATtagged s.143 If I did not appeal the s.143(1) intimation, can I attack the same adjustment in the appeal against the s.143(3) order?
NFAC Delhi v NRB DevelopersITATCuts both waystagged s.143(3) The stamp duty value is above what I paid for the property. Does the 10% tolerance cover my earlier year?
Orient Craft Ltd v DCITITATHelps departmenttagged s.143(1) I withdrew my appeal against the section 143(1) intimation because the case went into scrutiny. Can the Assessing Officer now rectify under section…
Rameshchandra Balachand v JCIT (OSD)ITATHelps taxpayertagged s.143(3) The officer says my partner is a sleeping partner because she is not in the office every day. Can he disallow her remuneration?
Rashmi Jalan v ACITITATHelps taxpayertagged s.143(3) The 271AAB notice does not say which clause or what rate. Can the penalty survive?
Samsung C and T Corporation India P Ltd v DCITITATHelps taxpayertagged s.143(1)(a) CPC issued the section 143(1)(a) notice and passed the intimation a week later, and the portal shows a response I never filed. Is that intimation…
Shree Dhamel Seva Sahkari v ADIT (CPC)ITATHelps taxpayertagged s.143(1) CPC denied my society's 80P in a 143(1) intimation because the return was late. Can it?
Shree Maheshwari Vidyalaya v ITOITATHelps taxpayertagged s.143(1) The CPC adjusted your return under s.143(1)(a) without warning. Can it do that?
South India Club v ITOITATCuts both waystagged s.143(1) CPC denied my trust's section 11 exemption in a section 143(1) intimation for a late Form 10B, and a regular assessment has since been completed and…
Syeda Bibi Sadiqa v DCITITATHelps taxpayertagged s.143(3) Is there a ceiling on the interest I can deduct on a house that is let out?
Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd v DCITITATHelps taxpayertagged s.143(3) After Explanation 2 to s.263, can the Commissioner revise simply by saying the enquiry was not thorough enough?
Vatsalabai Karbhari Deore v ACITITATHelps taxpayertagged s.143(2) You missed the notices and got a best judgment assessment. Is the officer's estimate final?
What this page does not tell you. It does not reproduce the section. Everything above was written from the section’s own text as the Income Tax Department publishes it — the text is here, and nothing here is advice on your facts. Where a figure matters, read the sub-section it comes from.