← All Phrases

“Section 143(2)”

Section References (mined)Section 143Section 143(2)17,209 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 143(2) is National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT (229 ITR 383), cited in 5,834 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 143(2)

National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT
229 ITR 383 · 1998 · Supreme Court
5,834
citing judgments

Appellate authorities can consider new claims and additional grounds if the relevant facts are already on record. The purpose of assessment is to correctly determine tax liability, allowing both parties to raise issues.

CIT v. Kabul Chawla
380 ITR 573 · 2016 · High Court
3,235
citing judgments

In a search assessment under Section 153A, additions can only be made for completed or non-abated assessment years if incriminating material relevant to those years is found during the search, although notice under Section 153A(1) is mandatorily issued for six assessment years preceding the search.

Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT
243 ITR 83 · 2000 · Supreme Court
2,943
citing judgments

For revision under Section 263, the Assessing Officer's order must be both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue; if either condition is not met, the revisionary jurisdiction cannot be invoked. An order is not erroneous merely because the Assessing Officer did not record the details of enquiries conducted, provided due enquiries were made.

CIT v. Vegetable Products Ltd.
88 ITR 192 · 1973 · Supreme Court
2,664
citing judgments

When two equally plausible interpretations of a taxing provision are possible, or when conflicting views exist from non-jurisdictional High Courts, the interpretation that favors the assessee must be adopted.

CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd.
38 ITD 320 · 1991 · ITAT
2,267
citing judgments

An appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal can be dismissed for non-prosecution or treated as unadmitted when the appellant fails to appear, cooperate, or show diligence, in accordance with Rule 19(2) of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules. The law aids the vigilant, not those who sleep on their rights.

CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd.
313 ITR 340 · 2009 · High Court
2,118
citing judgments

Where an assessee claims that investments were made out of own funds, interest disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D may not apply if the assessee demonstrates the availability of sufficient interest-free funds to cover such investments.

CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd.
320 ITR 561 · 2010 · Supreme Court
1,673
citing judgments

An Assessing Officer cannot initiate reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act based on a mere change of opinion. Reassessment is permissible only when there is fresh tangible material leading to the belief of income escapement, not merely a review of existing facts.

CIT v. AIMIL Ltd.
321 ITR 508 · 2010 · High Court
1,629
citing judgments

Employee contributions to PF and ESIC, deposited beyond the due date under the respective Acts but within the due date for filing the income tax return under Section 139(1), are allowable deductions under Section 36(1)(va). Such disallowance cannot be made during processing under Section 143(1).

Judgments citing Section 143(2)

Bhikhabhai H Patel, Gandhinagar vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Patan

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 886/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Parin Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Uday Kishanrao Kakne, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Mansha Textiles Pvt. Ltd., Vadodara vs. The ITO, Ward-2(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1396/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2012-13 Mansha Textiles P. Ltd. The Ito, Ward-2(1)(1) 1, Vikram Society Vadodara. Gotri Road, Vadodara Pan : Aadcm 0191 J (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Ms.Urvashi Shodhan, Ar Revenue By : Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09/10/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 13/10/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

For Appellant: Ms.Urvashi Shodhan, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.DR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 24

relevant year was e-filed on 19.03.2014 declaring total income of Rs.5,75,781/-. The case was selected for scrutiny. Notice under section 143(2) was issued on 30.09.2014 and served on the same date. Thereafter notices under section 142(1) were issued on 07.10.2014 and 30.10.2014 calling for audited

Brahm Precision Materials Pvt. Ltd., Aurangabad vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 425/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1183/Pun/2023 And

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “A”, PUNE BEFORE DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

Brahm Precision Materials Pvt Ltd, Aurangabad vs. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 1183/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1183/Pun/2023 And

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “A”, PUNE BEFORE DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

Kovida Designs, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-6(4), Hyderabad

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

ITA 997/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice- & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: C.A_ T. Ram PrasadFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 69A

disclosing gross sales of Rs.3,07,41,823/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and a notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) was issued. Subsequently, the assessee filed a revised return on 25.10.2018, declaring the same total income of Rs.11

Keshvan Jewellers, Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 32, Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1530/KOL/2025[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Oct 2025AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.1530/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Keshvan Jewellers………….…………………....…………………....Appellant 80, Burtolla Street, Barabazar, Kol-7. [Pan: Aaefk3801F] Vs. Acit, Circle-32, Kolkata..……………....…..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P. N. Barnwal, Cit, Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 09, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 13, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 21.02.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2009-10 Declaring A Total Income Of ₹ 74,81,790/-. During The Course Of Scrutiny Proceedings Under Sections 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act, The Assessing Officer Determined The Total Income At ₹2,77,84,400. The Addition Was Made On Account Of Disallowance Of Loss Claimed In The Manufacturing Process, Amounting To ₹ 2,03,02,614. The Assessing Officer Observed That The Assessee Had Claimed A Process-Loss Of About 3.38% Of The Value Of Goods

Section 194CSection 250Section 40

income for the assessment year 2009-10 declaring a total income of ₹ 74,81,790/-. During the course of scrutiny proceedings under sections 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act, the Assessing Officer determined the total income at ₹2,77,84,400. The addition was made on account

Hijaldiha Vivekananda Seva Samity, Hijaldiha vs. CIT(Exemptions), Kolkata

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1177/KOL/2025[----]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Oct 2025

Bench: 01.04.2021. Being An Old Registered Trust Assessee Has Filed Application For Registration U/S.

Section 124(1)(ac)Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 2

returns of income tax for the Assessment years 2022-23 and 2023-24 being selected for CASS scrutiny and received notices under Sections 143(2) and 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, the rejection order issued in Form 10AD under Section 124(1)(ac)(i) is illegal

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4(4), Kolkata vs. Flex Trade Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1828/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 131Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 68

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ “सी’’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH: KOLKATA "ी राजेश कुमार

M/S. Stupendors Traders Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-5(1)., Kolkata

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes, having been remanded back to the file of Ld

ITA 326/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) Also The Assessee Could Not Succeed & The 2 M/S Stupendors Traders Pvt. Ltd. Following Findings Of Ld. Cit(A) Would Summarize His Stand:

Section 131Section 250Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, KOLKATA SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A

Ponnuchamy, Coimbatore vs. ITO, Ncw-4(4), Coimbatore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2068/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2068/Chny/2025 िनधा(रण वष( / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Ponnuchamy, Income Tax Officer, 5/224, East Arasur, Sulur, Vs. Non-Corp Ward-4(4) Coimbatore – 641 407. Coimbatore. Tamil Nadu. [Pan: Apfpp-3342-G] (अपीलाथ*/Appellant) (+,थ*/Respondent) अपीलाथ* की ओर से/Appellant By : Mr. Girish Kumar S, Advocate For Mr. S. Sridhar, Advocate. +,थ* की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Anitha, Addl. Cit.

For Appellant: Mr. Girish Kumar S, Advocate for Mr. S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘सीʼ "ायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी मनु कुमार िग"र

Manasvi Project Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax 12(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4921/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt. Renu Jauhri ()

Section 143(2)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SMT. RENU JAUHRI (ACCOUNTANT

DCIT CC-8(2), Mumbai vs. Rakesh S Kathotia, Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 4295/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 132Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)Section 250

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT

Ratan Bhaubali Bhalwankar, Mumbai vs. ACIT-16(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1808/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarmr. Ratan Bahubali V/S. Assistant Commissioner Of Bhalwankar बनाम Income Tax – 16(3), C/O – 2Nd Floor, Gita Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai - Building, Sion Circle, 400021, Maharashtra Mumbai - 400 022, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aacpb7285Q Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Margav Shukla, Adv and Shubham ShahFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kasuri, (Sr. AR)
Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

given facts, circumstances and judicial pronouncements Hon. CIT (Appeals) erred in confirming the assessment in the absence of valid notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Such upholding of assessment in the absence of Valid Notice under section 143(2) is bad in law and liable

Warner Bros Distributing Inc., United States of America vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle International Taxation 4(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 3411/MUM/2023[AY 2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra (virtually present)For Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 9(1)(vi)

declaring a total income of Rs.29,44,140/-. The return filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny, and statutory notices under section 143(2) and section 142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee. During the assessment proceedings, it was observed that the assessee entered

Franklin Templeton Internaitoanl Services (I) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (OSD) 3(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2007-08 and 2008-09 stands partly allowed

ITA 7216/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

Section 133(6)Section 92D

year under consideration on 30/10/2007 declaring total income of Rs.7,33,36,336/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and statutory notice under section 143(2) of the act along with notice under section 142(1) of the act was issued to assessee. In response to the statutory notices, representative

Franklin Templeton International Services (I) P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 3(1)(OSD), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2007-08 and 2008-09 stands partly allowed

ITA 6986/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

Section 133(6)Section 92D

year under consideration on 30/10/2007 declaring total income of Rs.7,33,36,336/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and statutory notice under section 143(2) of the act along with notice under section 142(1) of the act was issued to assessee. In response to the statutory notices, representative

Yashbir Singh, Panipat vs. ITO Ward-5, Panipat

Appeal is allowed

ITA 5174/DEL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Sh.Mukesh Kumar Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

framing assessment herein is the learned Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, Panipat whereas the Income Tax officer, Ward-2, Fatehbad had issued mandatory section 143(2) notice dated 13.08.2018. Meaning thereby that it is clear cut case if the learned Assessing Officer having not issued any section 143(2) notice

Sanjay Malhotra, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-29(3), Delhi

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

ITA 2255/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmansanjay Malhotra, Vs. Ito, Ward 29 (3), Hs – 23, Second Floor, Kailash Colony, Delhi. New Delhi – 122 002. (Pan : Aaipm0514F) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri K. Sampath, Advocate Shri V. Rajkumar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.07.2025 Date Of Order : 13.10.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [For Short ‘Ld. Cit (A)] For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2017-18 On 27.10.2017 Declaring An Income Of Rs.15,06,840/-. The Case Was Selected For Complete Scrutiny Under Cass. Notices Under Section 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Income-Tax Act

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

Year 2017-18 on 27.10.2017 declaring an income of Rs.15,06,840/-. The case was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS. Notices under section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Income-tax Act, 2 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) were issued and served on the assessee through ITBA portal

Shivansh Dairy Products Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Delhi

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

ITA 1087/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanshivansh Dairy Products Private Limited, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 26/6, Plot No.4, Nangli Sakrawati Indl. Area, Delhi. Near Main Najafgarh Road, New Delhi – 110 043. (Pan : Aarcs9344P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Shantanu Jain, Advocate Shri Deepanshu Jain, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.07.2025 Date Of Order : 13.10.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Preferred By The Assessees Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [For Short ‘The Ld. Cit (A)] Dated 11.01.2024 For Ay 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 21.11.2017 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.6,16,930/-. The Case Was Selected For Complete Scrutiny Through Cass For The Following Reason :- “Abnormal Increase In Cash Deposits During Demonetization Period As Compared To Pre-Demonetization Period.”

For Appellant: Shri Shantanu Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

CASS for the following reason :- “abnormal increase in cash deposits during demonetization period as compared to pre-demonetization period.” 2 3. Notices under section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) were issued and served on the assessee through ITBA portal. After

Prashant Arvind Tayade, Amravati vs. ITO Ward 5, Amravati

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

ITA 467/NAG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur10 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleprashant Arvind Tayade, Plot No.33, Parakashta Jalpurti Colony, Ymv Road ……………. Appellant Amravati 444604, Maharashtra. Pan–Agtpt6782D V/S Income Tax Officer Ward–5, Ito Building, ……………. Respondent Saturna, Amravati-444607, Maharashtra. Assessee By: Shri.Bhushan Lathiya.A.R. Revenue By :Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri.Bhushan Lathiya.A.RFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr. DR
Section 250Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Prashant Arvind Tayade, Plot