This compilation indexes 12 recent rulings — spanning March 2026 to July 2026 — from the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) benches across India and two Division Bench judgments of the Chhattisgarh High Court, all engaging Section 143(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The rulings cover a range of appellant profiles: individual residents, corporate entities, educational institutions, charitable trusts, and a public-sector university. Researchers, in-house tax teams, and Big-4 associates tracking the evolving jurisprudence on CPC-level adjustments, employee-contribution disallowances, maximum marginal rate application, and revision jurisdiction in the context of intimations will find this index useful as a starting point for deeper primary-source research.

Research index only. This page catalogues publicly available judicial orders for reference purposes. It is not legal or tax advice. Always verify citations against the full judgment text and check for subsequent stays, reversals, or CBDT instructions before relying on any ruling.

The statutory framework in one paragraph

Section 143(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 empowers the income-tax authority to process a return of income filed by an assessee and make certain arithmetical adjustments by way of an intimation — without opening a full scrutiny assessment. The adjustments permissible under this provision include, among others, the correction of arithmetical errors in the return, disallowance of loss claimed under a head of income where the return for the previous year in which such loss was incurred was not furnished within the time prescribed, disallowance of expenditure indicated in the audit report but not taken into account while computing total income in the return, and disallowance of deduction claimed under certain provisions if the return is not filed within the prescribed time. The intimation issued under this provision by the Centralised Processing Centre (CPC) is a specific, limited-scope instrument, and the question of whether a particular disallowance or adjustment falls within the permissible scope of Section 143(1)(a) — as distinct from an assessment order under Section 143(3) — has been a recurring and consequential issue before tribunals and High Courts.

The 12 rulings

1. Musku Rajini Reddy,Nizamabad vs ITO., Ward-1, Nizamabad

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Hyderabad
Date: 29 July 2026
Sections engaged: 143(1)(a), 143(2), 143(3)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal before ITAT Hyderabad (ITA 928/HYD/2025, AY 2020-21) was filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC), Delhi. Per the source preview, the present appeal is directed against the CIT(A) order, and the matter engages the inter-relationship between the intimation stage and subsequent assessment proceedings under the referenced provisions.

2. Kurukshetra University,Haryana vs DCIT(E)(C-2), Chandigarh, Chandigarh

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chandigarh
Date: 15 July 2026
Sections engaged: 10, 139(1), 143(1), 143(1)(a), 154, 44A
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: This appeal (ITA No. 72/Chd/2026, AY 2020-21) was filed by Kurukshetra University against the order of the CIT(A), ADDL/JCIT(A)-2, Chennai dated 12/12/2025. Per the source preview, the assessee raised multiple grounds; the hearing was conducted in hybrid mode and the order was pronounced on 15/07/2026.

3. Indium Software (India) Pvt vs DCIT, Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai
Date: 3 July 2026
Sections engaged: 143(1)(a), 36(1)(va)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal (ITA No. 3959/CHNY/2025, AY 2017-18) arose out of an intimation passed under Section 143(1) of the Act. Per the source preview, the assessee had filed a rectification application; a final rectification order was passed on 29.04.2024, in which the assessee was not given relief, and the assessee thereafter filed the present appeal aggrieved by the intimation and the outcome of the rectification proceedings.

4. Sanjay Nayar, Mumbai vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai
Date: 29 June 2026
Sections engaged: 143(1)(a), 249(2)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal (ITA No. 3370/Mum/2026, AY 2021-22) arose out of an intimation dated 08.07.2022 issued by the Centralised Processing Centre (CPC) under Section 143(1) of the Act, which was subsequently challenged before CIT(A) whose order dated 27.01.2026 is the impugned order. Per the source preview, the assessee is an individual and resident who, during AY 2021-22, earned income from generation of solar power through four eligible undertakings and claimed deduction accordingly.

5. Lt Col. Satish Kumar Oberoi,Panipat vs Addl/Jcit(A)-3 Bangalauru, Bangaluru

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi
Date: 29 June 2026
Sections engaged: 143(1)(a)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: Six appeals (ITA Nos. 6188, 6175, 6176, 6210, 6200, and 6206/DEL/2024 spanning AYs 2017-18 to 2022-23) involving common issues were heard together and disposed of by a common order, with the lead appeal being ITA No. 6176/Del/2024 (AY 2019-20). Per the source preview, the assessee's counsel submitted that an identical matter involving another assessee had been decided by the Tribunal, and the solitary issue raised by the assessee is the central point of adjudication.

6. Mi2C Business Enterprises Private vs DCIT Circle 16(1) Delhi, New Delhi

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi
Date: 16 June 2026
Sections engaged: 143(1)(a), 36(1)(va), 43B
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: Three appeals (ITA Nos. 1361, 1362 & 1363/Del/2026) for AYs 2017-18, 2018-19, and 2019-20 were filed against intimations under Section 143(1)(a) dated 15.03.2019, 12.01.2020, and 07.05.2020 respectively. Per the source preview, the disputed amounts relate to employer and employee share of PF and ESI contributions, and the Checkmate order date of 12.10.2022 is relevant to the timeline of proceedings; the assessee cited several precedents before the Tribunal in support of its position.

7. Shri Vishwa Punarnirman Sangh,Nagpur vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Nagpur
Date: 10 June 2026
Sections engaged: 143(1), 143(1)(a)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal (ITA No. 129/NAG/2025, AY 2021-22) was directed against the CIT(A) order dated 24/12/2024 passed under Section 250 of the Act. Per the source preview, the assessee is a Public Charitable Trust engaged in providing education by running the school "Bharti Krishna Vidya Vihar," is registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act and under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and filed a return of income for the relevant assessment year.

8. Prama Metta Orphanes Trust ,Gaya vs ITO Exemption Ward-1, Patna

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Patna
Date: 8 June 2026
Sections engaged: 139(9), 143(1)(a)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: Three appeals (ITA Nos. 135 to 137/PAT/2026) for AYs 2014-15, 2015-16, and 2018-19 were filed by the same assessee against separate orders passed under Section 250 of the Act by the ADDL/JCIT(A)-1, Ahmedabad, all dated 30.12.2025. Per the source preview, the three CIT(A) orders each carry distinct DIN and Order Numbers, and the grounds raised by the assessee are common across the three appeals.

9. Fajle Rabbi Chand Charitable vs Income Tax Officer Ward 5, Sangli

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Pune
Date: 15 May 2026
Sections engaged: 167B(1), 143(1)(a)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal (ITA 3114/PUN/2025, AY 2024-25) was directed against the NFAC order dated 21.11.2025, which arose out of a rectification order dated 02.01.2025. Per the source preview, the only grievance of the assessee is that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the Assessing Officer's action of applying the maximum marginal rate of tax on the income of the assessee, which is a charitable trust.

10. M/S Varsha Construction vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax

Bench: Chattisgarh High Court
Date: 16 April 2026
Sections engaged: 143(1)(a), 36(1)(va)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: This appeal (TAXC No. 133 of 2025) before the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur arose under Section 260A of the Act from an ITAT Raipur Bench order dated 22-1-2025 in ITA No. 5/RPR/2023. Per the source preview, the appeal was admitted on 2-9-2025 on a substantial question of law; the assessee had filed a return of income for AY 2019-20 declaring total income of Rs. 1,27,98,874/- and paid tax of Rs. 44,72,437/-.

11. Maa Harsiddhi Infra Developers Private vs The Assistant Commissioner Of Incime

Bench: Chattisgarh High Court
Date: 16 April 2026
Sections engaged: 36(1)(va), 143(1)(a)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: This appeal (TAXC No. 152 of 2025) before the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur arose under Section 260A of the Act from an ITAT Raipur Bench order dated 19-12-2024 in ITA No. 306/RPR/2024. Per the source preview, the appeal was admitted on 11-9-2025 on a substantial question of law; the assessee had filed a return of income for AY 2019-20 declaring total income of Rs. 2,57,41,230/-.

12. The Anglo Indian Educational Society Of vs CIT, Patna

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Patna
Date: 19 March 2026
Sections engaged: 263, 143(1)(a)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal (ITA No. 399/PAT/2024, AY 2018-19) was filed against the order of the CIT (Exemption), Patna passed under Section 263 of the Act dated 01.03.2023. Per the source preview, the assessee is a Trust running three schools in Patna — St. Karen's High School, St. Karen's Secondary School, and St. Karen's Collegiate School — and is registered under Section 10(23C)(vi) of the Act; the revision order forming the subject matter of the appeal is challenged on the grounds set out before the Tribunal.

Patterns across these 12 rulings

Section 143(1)(a) as a gateway issue across diverse appellant profiles. The 12 rulings span individual residents, private limited companies, a public university, charitable trusts, and an educational society. In each instance, the initial trigger is an intimation or adjustment at the CPC/processing stage, confirming that Section 143(1)(a) disputes arise across all categories of income-tax filers and are not confined to any particular sector.
Employee contributions to PF/ESI as a recurrent disallowance ground. Cases 3 (Indium Software), 6 (Mi2C Business Enterprises), 10 (M/S Varsha Construction), and 11 (Maa Harsiddhi Infra Developers) all engage Section 36(1)(va) alongside Section 143(1)(a), indicating that disallowance of employee-share provident fund and ESI contributions at the intimation stage remains a live and contested issue, including at the High Court level.
Charitable and educational trusts as a distinct litigation cluster. Cases 7 (Vishwa Punarnirman Sangh), 8 (Prama Metta Orphanes Trust), 9 (Fajle Rabbi Chand Charitable Trust), and 12 (Anglo Indian Educational Society) all involve trusts or educational institutions. The Section 143(1)(a) intimation context intersects in these cases with exemption provisions and rectification proceedings, suggesting that the processing of returns of exempt entities at the CPC level generates a distinct pattern of disputes.
Rectification and revision as downstream consequences of 143(1)(a) intimations. Several rulings (cases 3, 9, and 12) involve rectification orders under Section 154 or revision orders under Section 263 that arise downstream of an intimation under Section 143(1)(a). This reflects a pattern where the original CPC-level adjustment generates subsequent proceedings across multiple stages of the appellate hierarchy.
Batch disposal of appeals involving common issues. In at least one instance (case 5, Lt. Col. Satish Kumar Oberoi), six appeals spanning multiple assessment years were heard together and disposed of by a common order, illustrating the Tribunal's practice of consolidating appeals raising identical questions arising from Section 143(1)(a) intimations across successive years.

How to use this compilation

This index is intended to serve as a first-pass research map, not a substitute for reading the full judgment in each case. Each entry identifies the forum, date, assessment year (where available from the source), and sections engaged — sufficient to locate the original order on indiankanoon.org, the ITAT's official website, or official High Court portals. Researchers should retrieve and read the complete order before drawing any inference about the holding, reasoning, or ratio, since the text previews available in this compilation are necessarily truncated.

Before placing reliance on any ruling listed here, researchers should check whether the order has been stayed, reversed, or distinguished by a subsequent order of a coordinate bench, appellate authority, or superior court. The ITAT and High Court databases are updated with varying latency, and a ruling pronounced in June or July 2026 may already have been the subject of a rectification application, a miscellaneous application, or an appeal to the High Court or Supreme Court that is not yet reflected in publicly available records.

Researchers should also cross-reference relevant CBDT circulars, instructions, and press releases that may bear on the interpretation of Section 143(1)(a) and the scope of permissible CPC adjustments, since departmental instructions sometimes clarify or circumscribe the scope of processing adjustments in ways that affect how tribunals approach individual disputes. Where a ruling turns on a specific set of facts — such as the date of deposit of employee contributions relative to the due date, or the registration status of a trust — verify that those facts are comparable to the matter under research before treating the ruling as directly applicable.

Source

All cases listed above are drawn from the TaxNoticeAI structured legal corpus (16,101 Indian tax judgments, CBIC circulars, ITAT rulings, AAR rulings, GSTAT rulings), sourced from indiankanoon.org and official court portals.

Section 143(1)(a) Adjustments: 12 ITAT & HC Rulings (2026)