← All Phrases

“Section 143(2)(ii)”

Section References (mined)Section 143Section 143(2)(ii)19 judgments

MARSHAL SECURITY SERVICES,AGRA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AGRA

ITA 131/AGR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Agra28 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE : SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH

PRAMOD KUMAR CHOUDHARY,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 206/JPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Jul 2025AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69

Court”\nPCIT vs Paramount Biotech Industries Ltd. (Delhi HC) in ITA 887/2017 &\nITA 888/2017 vide order dated 24.10.2017:\n“The wording of Section 143(2)(ii) of the Act, which is applicable in the present\ncase, requires the AO to be satisfied on examining the return filed that prima\nfacie

DHANOTTAM VASANT LONKAR,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(3), , PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 214/PUN/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Apr 2025AY 2013-14
Section 129Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 54FSection 68

nproceedings for A. Y. 2013-14, hence neither I nor my A/R\nappeared and or submitted any details.\nAs per the provisions of section 143(2)(ii), no notice under clause\n(ii) shall be served on the assessee after the expiry of 6 months\nfrom ... proper address is rejected.\nThe taxpayer has also raised the issue that 143(2) was not served\nwithin the time limit prescribed under section 143(2)(ii). This section was\namended w.e.f 1/6/2016. Prior to that Finance Act, 2008 w.e.f\n1/4/2008 read as under\n[(2) Where a return

SUCHITA BHATIA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIR-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 902/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vivek Bhargav, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Anup Singh, Addl.CIT a
Section 143(2)Section 250

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh

JATIN DILIPBHAI JANI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 892/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble

For Appellant: Revenue by Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT-DR and Shri ashokkumar Suthar, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)

decide the controversy with regard to escapment of income. Pr.CIT Vs. Paramount Biotech Industries Ltd., (2017) 398 ITR 701 (Del): “The wording of Section 143(2)(ii) of the Act, which is applicable in the present case, requires the AO to be satisfied on examining the return filed that prima

JATIN DILIPBHAI JANI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 891/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble

For Appellant: Revenue by Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT-DR and Shri ashokkumar Suthar, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)

decide the controversy with regard to escapment of income. Pr.CIT Vs. Paramount Biotech Industries Ltd., (2017) 398 ITR 701 (Del): “The wording of Section 143(2)(ii) of the Act, which is applicable in the present case, requires the AO to be satisfied on examining the return filed that prima

VINOD KUMAR KASTURCHAND GOLECHHA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-19(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee for both the years under consideration stands allowed

ITA 1967/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Smt Renu Jauhriassessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 Vinod Kumar Kasturchand Income Tax Officer- Golechha 19(3)(1) 321, 3Rd Floor, Piramal Chambers, Amrit Diamond House, Lal Baugh, Near Pnachratna Building, Parel, Vs. Opera House, Mumbai- 400012. Mumbai- 400004. Pan: Acjpg4942J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Usha Gaikwad, Sr. A.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)

have perused the submissions advanced by both sides in the light of records placed before us. 5. The wording of the section 143(2)(ii) as applicable to the present year under consideration requires the Ld.AO to be satisfied after examination of the return filed by the assessee that, prima

VINOD KUMAR KASTURCHAND GOLECHHA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-19(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee for both the years

ITA 1966/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Smt Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Usha Gaikwad, Sr. A.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)

have perused the submissions advanced by both sides in the light of records placed before us. 5. The wording of the section 143(2)(ii) as applicable to the present year under consideration requires the Ld.AO to be satisfied after examination of the return filed by the assessee that, prima

CHANGAAI MANGALOTE IBRAHIM,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(4), BANGALORE

In the result, assessee's appeal stands allowed

ITA 1405/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Sri Ravi Shankar S.V., A.RFor Respondent: Sri D.K. Mishra, D.R
Section 143(2)Section 234ASection 250Section 54F

ITA No.1405/Bang/2024 Changaai Mangalote Ibrahim, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(2)(2), GHAZIABAD vs. RAJEEV KUMAR ARORA, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and Rule 27

ITA 698/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Khandelwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Banita Devi Naorem, CIT DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)(e)

month in which the return of income was furnished by the assessee on 27.7.2007, and though as per Proviso to section 143(2)(ii), the assessing officer could have served the notice u/s 143(2) on or before 31.7.2008. 2. Assessment order passed u/s 143(3) is also legally invalid

INCOME TAX OFFICER, GHAZIABAD vs. RAJEEV KUMAR ARORA, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and Rule 27

ITA 642/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Khandelwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Banita Devi Naorem, CIT DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)(e)

month in which the return of income was furnished by the assessee on 27.7.2007, and though as per Proviso to section 143(2)(ii), the assessing officer could have served the notice u/s 143(2) on or before 31.7.2008. 2. Assessment order passed u/s 143(3) is also legally invalid

INCOME TAX OFFICER, GHAZIABAD vs. RAJEEV KUMAR ARORA, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and Rule 27

ITA 641/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Khandelwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Banita Devi Naorem, CIT DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)(e)

month in which the return of income was furnished by the assessee on 27.7.2007, and though as per Proviso to section 143(2)(ii), the assessing officer could have served the notice u/s 143(2) on or before 31.7.2008. 2. Assessment order passed u/s 143(3) is also legally invalid

INCOME TAX OFFICER, GHAZIABAD vs. RAJEEV KUMAR ARORA, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and Rule 27

ITA 622/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Khandelwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Banita Devi Naorem, CIT DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)(e)

month in which the return of income was furnished by the assessee on 27.7.2007, and though as per Proviso to section 143(2)(ii), the assessing officer could have served the notice u/s 143(2) on or before 31.7.2008. 2. Assessment order passed u/s 143(3) is also legally invalid

DHAVAL EXIM PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, 5(1)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2532/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dhaval Exim Pvt. Ltd., Acit, 5(1)(2), 117-A, 117-A, Panchratna Bldg., Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Mama Parmanand Marg, Opera Maharishi Karve Road, House, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400 004. Pan No. Aadcd 0472 B Appellant Respondent : Mr. Rajesh Shah Assessee By Revenue By : Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. Dr : 04/04/2024 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 25/04/2024

For Respondent: Mr. Rajesh Shah
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)

without notice under Section 143 (2) of the Act was justified. Section 143 (2) of the Act was justified. 18. The wording of Section 143(2)(ii) 18. The wording of Section 143(2)(ii) of the Act, which is of the Act, which is applicable in the present case

SOURABH SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. PCIT,JAIPUR-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 240/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Nov 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar (CIT) a
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 263

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh

KETAN TOKERSHI SHAH,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC--2, THANE

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1107/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 143(2)Section 68

incorporated in the preceding para graphs, it is observed that the selection of scrutiny was made on June 20, 2005 and notice under sections 143(2)(ii) and 142(1) was issued on July 11, 2005 i.e., beyond the period of the scrutiny as specified in Instruction

SURENDER KUMAR GOEL,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-60(5), NEW DELHI

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

ITA 638/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jan 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg

For Appellant: Shri Prakesh Sinha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 58Section 69C

finalising the reassessment orders without notice under Section 143 (2) of the Act was justified. 18. The wording of Section 143(2)(ii) of the Act, which is applicable in the present case, requires the AO to be satisfied on examining the return filed that prima facie the Assessee

ITO, WARD- 3(2), NOIDA vs. RENU JAIN, DELHI

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3516/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Mar 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaasstt. Year 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Barun Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Dudeja, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 139Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(2)(ii)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148

filed. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by ignoring the fact that as per provision of section 143(2)(ii) there is a time limit for issuance of notice under section 143(2) i.e. shall be served on the assessee before the expiry

NANCY CRAFTS LTD

Appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms

ITA - 466 / 2011HC Delhi08 Sept 2011
Section 143(2)(ii)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 80Section 80H

return of income at `34,63,640/- on 30.10.2001. Thereafter, the case for the impugned year was selected for scrutiny and notice under Section 143(2)(ii) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to „the Act‟) was issued by the Assessing Officer (AO) and complied with by the assessee

Section 143(2)(ii) — 19 judgments | BharatTax | BharatTax