← 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)

S R Automobiles, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward-3(1), Jaipur

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

ITA 1269/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 May 2025AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Sisodia, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl.CIT a
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4, Jaipur vs. Jitendra Kumar Daga, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal is treated as allowed

ITA 1171/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 May 2025AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Ranka, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal, CIT a
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 153C

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

Palak Rajeshkumar Dudhiya, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(3)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 113/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri M.S. Chhajed, A.RFor Respondent: Shri N.J. Vyas, Sr. D.R
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 272Section 69A

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “SMC” BENCH Before Shri Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member Assessment Year 2017-18 Palak Rajesh

M/S. Checkmate Facility & Electronic Solution Pvt. Ltd., Vadodara vs. The ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 1614/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Ms.Kinjal Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr.DR
Section 115JSection 129Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 26ASection 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Book profit under section 115JB was declared at Rs.75,80,496/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and notices under sections 143(2) and 142(1) were issued and served on the assessee. Subsequent notice under section 142(1) read with section 129 was also issued

Shreesomnidhi Infrasolutions Pvt Ltd, Pune vs. DCIT, Circle 8, Pune

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

ITA 23/PUN/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 May 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Paras MunotFor Respondent: Shri Mallikarjun Utture
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “बी” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA

Mr. Gaurav Rajendra Malu, Jaysingpur vs. PCIT, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1206/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: FixedITAT Pune05 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1206/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Hari KrishanFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 143(2)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 263

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

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle - 1, Aurangabad vs. M/S. M.B. Patil Construction Ltd, Aurangabad

In the result, the cross appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 2078/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Kalrav MehrotraFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari &
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 40A(3)Section 68Section 801ASection 80I

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

M/S. M.B.Patil Constructions Ltd, Aurangabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle - 1, Aurangabad

In the result, the cross appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 2058/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Kalrav MehrotraFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari &
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 40A(3)Section 68Section 801ASection 80I

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

Swapan Bhttacharya, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle 61, Kolkata

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

ITA 242/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 90

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

Rajasthan Metals, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 28(4), New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 6041/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Naveen Chandraita No. 6041/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 M/S Rajasthan Metals, Vs Income Tax Officer, B-69, Mansarovar Park, Ward-28(4), Delhi-110032 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aapfr7089D Assessee By : Sh. Prince Mohan Sinha, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 05.05.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2015-16, Arises Against The Cit(A)-38, New Delhi’S In Case No. Cit(A), Delhi-38/10073/208-19 Dated 22.03.2019, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”)

For Appellant: Sh. Prince Mohan Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

authorities. Learned counsel second plea is that there is no indication in the lower authorities findings as to how and in what manner, section 143(2) notice had been issued and served to the assessee. 4. We find no merit in either of the assessee’s foregoing twin arguments. Learned ... very terms. 5. Next comes the assessee’s second argument that there is no indication about the mode/manner of actual service of section 143(2) notice. A perusal of the assessment order dated 28.12.2017 in para itself suggests that the learned assessing authority has issued it’s corresponding section 143

Padmanabhan Sriramulu, Chennai vs. ACIT, Corp. Circle-6(1), Chennai

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

ITA 2963/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2963/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Padmanabhan Sriramulu, The Assistant Commissioner Of 77/1, Thirupalli Street, Vs. Income Tax, Sowcarpet, Non-Corporate Circle 6(1), Room No.223, 2Nd Floor, Chennai – 600 079. Bsnl Tower Ii, No.16, Greams Road, Chennai – 600 006. [Pan: Abhps-7297-P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. Anandd Babunath, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Keerthi Narayanan, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

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

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Sbi Life Insurance Company Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue's appeal for the

ITA 4247/MUM/2023[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 May 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Farooq IraniFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 10(34)Section 14ASection 250Section 44

total income of Rs.445,83,69,050/-. The return filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS, and statutory notices under section 143(2) and section 142(1) were issued and served on the assessee. During the assessment proceedings, it was observed that the assessee has income

Dy. Commisioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Sbi Life Insurance Co. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue's appeal for the

ITA 4208/MUM/2023[2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 May 2025

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Farooq IraniFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 10(34)Section 14ASection 250Section 44

total income of Rs.445,83,69,050/-. The return filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS, and statutory notices under section 143(2) and section 142(1) were issued and served on the assessee. During the assessment proceedings, it was observed that the assessee has income

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai, Income Tax Department, DCIT vs. Sbi Life Insurance Company Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue's appeal for the

ITA 4185/MUM/2023[2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 May 2025

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Farooq IraniFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 10(34)Section 14ASection 250Section 44

total income of Rs.445,83,69,050/-. The return filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS, and statutory notices under Section 143(2) and Section 142(1) were issued and served on the assessee. During the assessment proceedings, it was observed that the assessee has income

DCIT-1(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Sbi Life Insurance Company Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue's appeal for the

ITA 1428/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Farooq IraniFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 10(34)Section 14ASection 250Section 44

total income of Rs.445,83,69,050/-. The return filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS, and statutory notices under Section 143(2) and Section 142(1) were issued and served on the assessee. During the assessment proceedings, it was observed that the assessee has income

DCIT-1(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Sbi Life Insurance Company Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue's appeal for the

ITA 1427/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Farooq IraniFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 10(34)Section 14ASection 250Section 44

total income of Rs.445,83,69,050/-. The return filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS, and statutory notices under section 143(2) and section 142(1) were issued and served on the assessee. During the assessment proceedings, it was observed that the assessee has income

DCIT-1(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Sbi Life Insurance Co. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue's appeal for the

ITA 1392/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Farooq IraniFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 10(34)Section 14ASection 250Section 44

total income of Rs.445,83,69,050/-. The return filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS, and statutory notices under section 143(2) and section 142(1) were issued and served on the assessee. During the assessment proceedings, it was observed that the assessee has income

Rajesh Kumar Jaiswal, Allahabad vs. Deputy/ACIT(Central), Allahabad

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

ITA 16/ALLD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad02 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: the query raised by the assessing authority vide questionnaire issued under section 142 (1) dated 23.01.2021, in assessment proceedings for the AY 2018-19.

For Appellant: Sh. Nikhil Agarwal & Ms. VidishaFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 115Section 115BSection 142Section 24Section 250Section 68Section 69

page no. 52 paper book wherein vide his letter dated 22.10.2019, which was more than a month after the issue of notice under section 143(2)while the notice under section 143(2) was to be complied with on or before 26.09.2019. Ld DR submitted that it was then that ... payment and the assessee had not revised the computation of income or paid tax prior to the issue of the notice under section 143(2). The ld. Sr. DR further invited our attention to part 3 of his Page No. D of his paper book which contained the case laws

Asstt Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1(1), Rajkot vs. Symbosa Granito Private Limited, Wankaner

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is a dismissed

ITA 805/RJT/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot02 May 2025AY 2021-22
For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, राजकोटन्यायपीठ, राजकोट । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT

Prakash Ashokbhai Raninga, Porbandar vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Jamnagar

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees (ITA No

ITA 265/RJT/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot02 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 264/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2019-20) (Hybrid Hearing) Arvind Durlabhji Jogia The Pr. Commissioner Of Vs. Ashapura Jewells, Kirti Mandir Income Tax, Jamnagar Income Tax Office, 4Th Floor Road, Porbandar Manek Centre, Nehru Road, Jamnagar - 361008 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Accpj0313M (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.265/Rjt/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2019-20)

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Parekh, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT(DR)
Section 115Section 115BSection 127(2)Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 69

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DINESH MOHAN