← All Phrases

“Section 143(2)(ii)”

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

The decision most relied on for Section 143(2)(ii) is CIT v. Smifs Securities Ltd. (348 ITR 302), cited in 540 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 143(2)(ii)

CIT v. Smifs Securities Ltd.
348 ITR 302 · 2012 · Supreme Court
540
citing judgments

Goodwill, whether arising from an amalgamation or a slump sale, is an intangible asset eligible for depreciation under Section 32(1) of the Income-tax Act. While the assessee must prove the existence and valuation of such goodwill, it is recognized as a depreciable asset.

CIT v. Bharat Hotels Ltd.
410 ITR 417 · 2019 · High Court
486
citing judgments

Employee contributions to provident fund and ESI, if paid beyond the due date prescribed by the respective welfare fund statutes, are not allowed as a deduction under the Income Tax Act.

CIT v. Microlabs Ltd.
383 ITR 490 · 2016 · High Court
175
citing judgments

If an assessee possesses interest-free funds exceeding investments in tax-free securities, it is presumed that investments are made from these own funds, precluding disallowance of interest expenditure under Section 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(ii). Additionally, weighted deduction under Section 35(2AB) is computed on the gross expenditure incurred, not net expenditure after reducing income earned.

CIT v. UTI Bank Ltd.
32 Taxmann.com 370 · 2013 · High Court
131
citing judgments

If an assessee possesses sufficient interest-free funds, it is presumed that investments yielding exempt income were made from these funds, therefore disallowance of interest expenditure under Section 14A is not justified.

Income Tax-III, Pune v. Rajasthan & Gujarati Charitable Foundation Poona
89 Taxmann.com 127 · 2018 · Supreme Court
130
citing judgments

The claim of depreciation under Section 32 of the Income Tax Act for assets used by charitable trusts is permissible, affirming the Bombay High Court's view that such a claim does not amount to a 'double benefit'.

CIT v. K. Srinivasan
83 ITR 346 · 1972 · Supreme Court
129
citing judgments

The term 'tax' includes surcharge and cess. Surcharge and additional surcharge are considered components of income tax, which can be levied as a basic charge, surcharge, special surcharge, and additional surcharge.

CIT v. Karnataka Power Corporation
247 ITR 268 · 2001 · Supreme Court
124
citing judgments

Income earned during the project construction stage, which has a direct nexus or is inextricably linked to the project's setting up, constitutes a capital receipt not liable to tax and reduces the project cost.

M.M. Aqua Technologies Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi
2021 SCC OnLine SC 575 · 2021 · Reported
102
citing judgments

A tax provision is retrospective only if legislative intent is explicit or if it is purely clarificatory and does not alter existing law. Provisions framed 'for the removal of doubts' are not presumed to be retrospective if they change the law as it stood.

Judgments citing Section 143(2)(ii)

Marshal Security Services, Agra vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Agra

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

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” PCIT vs Paramount Biotech Industries Ltd. (Delhi HC) in ITA 887/2017 & ITA 888/2017 vide order dated 24.10.2017: “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

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.214/Pun/2022

Section 129Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 54FSection 68

proceedings for A. Y. 2013-14, hence neither I nor my A/R appeared and or submitted any details. As per the provisions of section 143(2)(ii), no notice under clause (ii) shall be served on the assessee after the expiry of 6 months from the end of the financial ... proper address is rejected. The taxpayer has also raised the issue that 143(2) was not served within the time limit prescribed under section 143(2)(ii). This section was amended w.e.f 1/6/2016. Prior to that Finance Act, 2008 w.e.f 1/4/2008 read as under [(2) Where a return has been

Suchita Bhatia, Jaipur vs. DCIT Cir-6, 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

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

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

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