← 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)

Mahmadamin Yasinbhai Adanwala, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-6(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1537/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Tej Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.P Srivastava, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

case was selected for complete scrutiny through CASS for the purpose of verifying “cash deposits during the demonetization period.” Accordingly, statutory notices under sections 143(2) and 142(1) of the Income-tax Act were issued to the assessee. In compliance, the assessee furnished replies along with supporting details. However

Alpeshbhai Baldevbhai Rabari, Mehsana vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Mehsana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1237/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: S/Shri Sanjay Garg & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2017-2018 Alpeshbhai Baldevbhai Rabari Ito, Ward-1 3, Rabarivas, Palaj Vs. Mehsana. Mehsana 384 410 Gujarat. Pan : Bwgpr 0788 H (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Dhrunal Bhatt, Ar Assessee By : Shri Kalpesh Rupavatia, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30/09/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/10/2025

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Rupavatia, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 226(3)Section 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 250Section 69A

case was selected for scrutiny. However, during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee did not respond to the statutory notices issued under section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act. Consequently, the Assessing Officer proceeded to complete the assessment ex parte under section

M/S. Tbea Shenyang Trasformer Group Company Limited, Vadodara vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Int. Tax., Vadodara

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 121/AHD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: S/Shri Sanjay Garg & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2013-2014 M/S.Tbea Shenyang Transformer Dcit, International Group Company Limited Vs. Taxation Tbea Green Energy Park Vadodara. National Highway No.8 Village : Miyagam Karjan Vadodara Pan : Aadct 4557 F (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Ms.Amrin Pathan, Ar : Shri Mahesh Shah, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29/09/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/10/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Makarand V.Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Arises From The Assessment Order Dated 07.11.2017 Passed By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, International Taxation, Vadodara [Hereinafter Referred To As “Assessing Officer Or Ao”], Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For Assessment Year 2013-14 In Accordance With The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel – 2, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As “Drp”]

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(2)Section 144C(5)Section 271(1)(c)Section 92BSection 92CSection 92E

Officer has 2 recorded that the assessee filed its return of income on 26.09.2013 declaring a total loss of Rs.8,900/-. Notice under section 143(2) dated 10.09.2014 was issued and duly served. According to the Assessing Officer, the assessee did not furnish the accountant’s report in Form 3CEB

Prakash Katariya, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 11(1), Pune

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

ITA 1830/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaassessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Sudin SabnisFor Respondent: Ms. Sailee Dhole, JCIT
Section 143(2)Section 36

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT Assessment Year : 2020

Adyashakti Himghar Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ACIT Circle 7(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1187/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2017-18 Adyashakti Himghar Pvt. Ltd….……………………….……….……….……Appellant 11 Paul Street, Kol- 700004.. [Pan: Aacca1114C] Vs. Acit, Circle-7(1), Kolkata………………………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Altaf Hossain, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 17, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 07, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 20.05.2025 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Ld. Cit(A)”] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”].

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

dismissed. 4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the assessee preferred appeal before us. The ld. AR filed a copy of the notice issued under section 143(2) and contends that the said notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was not issued as per three formats propounded by the CBDT ... Agarwal and Ors HUF vs. ACIT (supra). We note that the ld. AR has also filed the copy of the notice issued under section 143(2) of the Act dated 13.08.2028 wherein it has been mentioned Scrutiny (Computer Aided Scrutiny Selection System) without conforming the three formats specified

Padam Kumar, Ambur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3(3), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 637/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr.Hitesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.E.Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 68

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी एबी टी. वक", "ाियक

Padam Kumar, Ambur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3(3), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 636/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr.Hitesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.E.Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 68

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी एबी टी. वक", "ाियक

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Madurai vs. Ramasubbu Minnalkodi, Tirunelveli

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1632/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, J.C.I.TFor Respondent: Shri. R. Venkata Raman, C.A
Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

which falls for consideration is whether the assessing officer, who had jurisdiction over the assessee at the relevant time had issued notice under section 143(2) of the Act before taking up the scrutiny assessment under section 143(3). Before we go into the facts, we take note ... 113/321 ITR 362, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that omission on the part of the assessing officer to issue notice under section 143(2) cannot be a procedural irregularity and the same is not curable and, therefore, the requirement of notice under section 143(2) cannot be dispensed

Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1, Raichur vs. Maralbid Padmavathi, Raichur

In the result, appeal filed by theRevenue is dismissed

ITA 1006/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri.Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2016-17 Ito, Vs. Maralbid Padmavathi, Ward – 1, 4-4-145, Zahirabad Raichur, Raichur. Raichur – 584 101, Karnataka. Pan :Anhpp 8615 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Narendra Sharma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Shankar Ganesh D, Addl. Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 12.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.10.2025

For Appellant: Shri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Shankar Ganesh D, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(b)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI.LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI. SOUNDARARAJAN K, JUDICIAL

ITO, Ward 6(1), Ludhiana vs. M/S Jujhar Construction & Travels Pvt. Ltd., Ludhiana

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 536/CHANDI/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 536/Chd/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 The Ito, Vs M/S Jujhar Construction & Ward 6(1), Travels Pvt. Ltd.,Near Pull Jawaddi, Ludhiana. Pakhowal Road, Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aabcj1127H अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 02.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.10.2025 Physical Hearing O R D E R Per Raj Pal Yadav, Vp

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 143(2)Section 2(22)(e)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ, च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, ‘A’ CHANDIGARH

Smt. Ritu Soin, Ludhiana vs. ACIT, CC-II, Ludhiana

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 305/CHANDI/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 Oct 2025AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CA andFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 263

issued on 07.03.2013. The assessee has filed his return of income on 31.07.2013 declaring total income at Rs.31,70,120/-. A notice under Section 143(2) was issued and served upon the assessee. Thereafter ld. AO has passed an assessment order under Section 153A read with Section 143

P Y C Hindu Gymkhana, Pune vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Pune

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

ITA 1321/PUN/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri C.H. NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 11Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 263

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

The Chandrasekarapuram Co-Operative Wholesale Stores Ltd., Thanjavur vs. ITO, Ward-1, Kumbakonam

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2570/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. N. Anitha, Addl. C.I.T
Section 143(2)Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी मनु कुमार

Bollineni Gurappa Naidu, Bengaluru vs. DCIT, Circle-5(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 692/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Sri V. Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Mr. Nabeel Saad, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 54Section 69A

ITA No.692/Bang/2025 Sri Bollineni Gurappa Naidu, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED

Damodar Reddy Marupuru, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 520/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Sri V. Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Mr. Nabeel Saad, D.R
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69Section 69A

ITA No.520/Bang/2025 Damodar Reddy Marupuru, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT

Sp Armada Oil Exploration Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax- Circle 3(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6575/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailsp Armada Oil Exploration Private Limited 404, Trade Centre, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai 400051. Pan: Aaqcs7983P ............... Appellant

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Butani a/w Shri Pratik PoddarFor Respondent: Shri. Pravin Salunkhe & Shri Aditya M. Rai
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 253(1)Section 92C(1)Section 92C(2)Section 92C(3)

quashed in-limine. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the notice issued under section 143(2) of the Act is without jurisdiction, bad in law and thus the entire proceedings initiated by the learned AO are void-ab-initio. Transfer Pricing

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax -7(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Horizon Packs Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeals by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 6096/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra, CIT D/R
Section 143(2)Section 32Section 801A

27/09/2019 आयकर नियम 1962 के नियम 12 ड़ के साथ पठित आयकर अधिनियम 1961 की धारा 143 (2) के अधीन नोटिस Notice under section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 read with Rule 12 E of Income Tax Rules, 1962 प्रिय करदाता, Dear Taxpayer, संवीक्षा (जांच) (कंप्यूटर आधारित

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax -7(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Horizon Packs Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeals by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 5950/MUM/2024[2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2025

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra, CIT D/R
Section 143(2)Section 32

27/09/2019 आयकर नियम 1962 के नियम 12 ड़ के साथ पठित आयकर अधिनियम 1961 की धारा 143 (2) के अधीन नोटिस Notice under section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 read with Rule 12 E of Income Tax Rules, 1962 प्रिय करदाता, Dear Taxpayer, संवीक्षा (जांच) (कंप्यूटर आधारित

ACIT, Circle-26(2), New Delhi vs. Vng Impex P.Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5917/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (Vice President), SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri S. Krishnan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 44ASection 68

filed its return of income declaring loss of Rs.23,37,52,920/- on 29.09.2012. The case was selected for scrutiny and notices under section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the 2 Act’) were issued by the ITO Ward 17(1) and served upon the assessee

Tigerhill Tradelink Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 10(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Appellant is Dismissed

ITA 956/KOL/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Oct 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151ASection 250Section 271BSection 68

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण कोलकाता 'डी' पीठ, कोलकाता में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA 'D' BENCH, KOLKATA श्री जॉर्ज