← 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)

Sanjog Jhabak L/H of Late Gautam Chand Jhabak, Raipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur-1, Raipur

In the result, all the appeals filed by the captioned assessees are allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 234/RPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur19 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri Nikhilesh Begani, Advocate
Section 1Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 263

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ रायपुर म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI RAVISH

Sanjog Jhabak, Raipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur-1, Raipur

In the result, all the appeals filed by the captioned assessees are allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 233/RPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur19 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri Nikhilesh Begani, Advocate
Section 1Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 263

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ रायपुर म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI RAVISH

Madhuri Devi, Saharsa vs. ITO Ward- 3 (4), Saharsa

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

ITA 238/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna19 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 145(3)Section 148Section 250Section 69A

assessment, reassessment notice would be without jurisdiction. 4. For that, the Learned AO has erred in framing assessment proceeding without issuing/serving Notice under section 143(2). The Ld AO never issued /served notice u/s 142(1) till date of passing of re-assessment order. 5. For that the Learned

Engineering Professional Co. Pvt Ltd, Surat vs. PCIT-1, Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 541/SRT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.541/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Engineering Professional Co. Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Pcit -1, 444, Royal Arcade, Opp. Sarthana Zoo, Surat Varachha Road, Near Sarthana Jakatnaka, Surat – 395006, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aabce0313Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 13/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19/02/2025

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 263

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT

St Marys Jacobite Syrian Church, Tripunithura vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward, Kochi

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

ITA 206/COCH/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Smt.Parvathy Ammal, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Sr.AR
Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 250(6)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Accountant Member & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

Ahluwalia Erectors and Febrications Pvt. Ltd., Kota vs. ACIT Cir-1 Kota, Kota

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 953/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya, Adv. &For Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 234A

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

DCIT, Jaipur vs. Amrapali Jewels Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

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

ITA 740/JPR/2024[2021]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Feb 2025

Bench: Him.

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjay Jhanwar, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 153DSection 251Section 69B

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

Krishan Pal Singh HUF, Jaipur vs. Assessing Officer, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1268/JPR/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Feb 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: the Ld CIT (Appeals).

For Appellant: Shri N. K. Agarwal, CA &For Respondent: Mrs. Swapnil Parihar, JCIT-DR
Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 28

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

Sanjay Lunia, Ajmer vs. ITO WD-2(1), Ajmer

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

ITA 767/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 69A

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

Jasvir Singh Chandi, Patiala Punjab vs. ACIT Circle Patiala, Punjab, Patiala Punjab

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 828/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tejmohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(2)Section 69Section 69A

income was filed declaring income of Rs. 62,33,770/- which was selected for compulsory scrutiny and after issuing of notice under section 143(2) and 142(1) calling for necessary information and documentation, the assessment was completed at a figure of Rs. 63,29,476/- wherein the AO made

Inderjit Singh Brar, Patiala vs. Income Tax Officer, Patiala

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 537/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT
Section 143(2)Section 69

declaring total income of Rs.5,05,270/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment and a notice under Section 143(2) was issued on 21.09.2018 which was duly served upon the assessee. On scrutiny of the accounts, it revealed to the AO that assessee had two outstanding

Vijakumar Jagannath Agarwal, Ahmedabad vs. Income Tax Office, Guj-C-1-104, Circle 2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1985/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1985/Ahd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Vijaykumar Jagannath The Income Tax Office Agarwal बनाम / Gujarat C-1-104 V/S. B-79, Sumel Business Park Circle-2(1)(1) Behind New Cloth Market Ahmedabad - 380 015 Ahmedabad – 380 002 (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) स्थायी लेखा सं./ Pan: Aazpa 8345 В (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mitul A. Ruparayl, Ca Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 17/02/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 19/02/2025 आदेश/Order Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)"] Dated 27/09/2024, For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2017-18, Wherein The Cit(A) Upheld The Addition Of Rs.30,26,460/- Made By The Assessing Officer (“Ao") Under Section 69A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act"). 2. Following Grounds Of Appeal Are Raised By The Assessee Before Us:

For Appellant: Shri Mitul A. Ruparayl, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.DR
Section 69A

Nagrik Bank) during the demonetization period (08.11.2016 to 30.12.2016). The case was selected for scrutiny assessment under CASS. Multiple notices were issued under Sections 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act, but the assessee failed to comply on several occasions. The assessee's bank statements reflected large cash deposits

Rapid Processors Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1)(2) (Old Ward- 3(1)(3)), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and the appeal of the assessee both are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1490/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar1. आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1483/Ahd/2024 – Asst.Year 2017-18 2. आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1490/Ahd/2024 – Asst.Year 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh Chhajed, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kavan Libasiya, Sr.DR
Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 139A(7)Section 143(2)Section 272BSection 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद "ायपीठ “बी“,अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD "ी टी.आर. से""ल

Income Tax Officer, Wardd-3(1)(2), Ahmedabad vs. Rapid Processors Private Limited, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and the appeal of the assessee both are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1483/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar1. आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1483/Ahd/2024 – Asst.Year 2017-18 2. आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1490/Ahd/2024 – Asst.Year 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh Chhajed, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kavan Libasiya, Sr.DR
Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 139A(7)Section 143(2)Section 272BSection 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद "ायपीठ “बी“,अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD "ी टी.आर. से""ल

Manoj Madanlal Chhajed, Pune vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Pune

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2017/PUN/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P Bora, H G Sharma
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI VINAY

Shri Manoj Madanlal Chhajed, Pune vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Pune

ITA 1178/PUN/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI VINAY

Natco Pharma Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Circle-5(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 853/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri A V Raghuram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 35Section 41Section 80Section 92CSection 92D(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD “A” BENCH : HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G

Praham India LLP, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 31(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4422/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal, Advocate and Shri Mayur Kisnadwala, CAFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT

Eltek Sgs Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-8(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 5531/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. I.P. Constructions Private Vs. Acit, Limited, 210 First Floor, Phool Circle-12(2), Singh Market Main, Delhi Vikas Marg, New Delhi Pin 1100 92 Pan No. Aabci4548K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Chandra Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 56(2)(viib)

completion method). 3. Mismatch in amount paid to related persons u/s 40A(2)(b) reported in Audit Report and ITR.” 3. Notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 11.04.2016 which was received back with remarks “left”. Again notice under Section 143(2 ... issued for 12.07.2016 which was not received back. None appeared on 12.07.2016. Fresh notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 12.09.2016 but nobody appeared. On 30.09.2016, notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was e-mailed which was also uncomplied with. Notice under Section

ACIT-1(1), Indore vs. Bridgestone India Private Limited, Pune

Appeal are ALLOWED”

ITA 307/IND/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore18 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2013-14 Acit 1(1), Bridgestone India Private Indore Limited, Plot No. A-43, बनाम/ Phase Ii, M.I.D.C Chakan, Vs. S.O Chakan, Pune (Revenue/Appellant) (Assessee/Respondent) Pan: Aabcb2304E Assessee By Shri Kaustubh Fadnis & Manoj Fadnis, Ars Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 17.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28.02.2025

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 145ASection 14A

आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, इंदौर"ायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE MS. SUCHITRA RAGHUNATH KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER