← 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)

Chandrashekar Hemanth, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 7(2)(4) Bangalore, Bengaluru

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

ITA 1677/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Siddesh Nagaraj Gaddi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sridhar E, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 69ASection 80

2,15,19,363/- in the return of income filed with Revenue, while the AO in proceedings conducted u/143(3) read with Section 143(2) of the 1961 Act , assessed income of the assessee at Rs. 27,20,480/-. The AO denied the benefit of set off of brought forwardbusiness

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle- 1(1)(1), Bangalore, Bmtc Building, Koramangala, Baqngalore vs. Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited, Bescom Corporate Office

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the ld

ITA 710/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri S. Annamalai & Joseph Varghese, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL

M/S. Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Ltd., Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the ld

ITA 426/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri S. Annamalai & Joseph Varghese, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL

Hakam Fluid Power Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 11(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 756/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara (Judicial Member)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 44DSection 9(1)(vii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘D’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH

Shri Ram Chander, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Delhi

ITA 3622/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanita Nos. 3621, 3622, 3623, 3624, 3625 & 3626/Del/2018 Asstt. Years : 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Srs Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-Ii (Merged With M/S Btl Industries Faridabad, Haryana (Later Merged With Btl Investment & Securities Ltd. Which Is Now Known As M/S Btl Holding Co. Ltd.) C/O Rra Taxindia, D-28, South Extension, Part-I, New Delhi – 49 (Pan: Aaics9912Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Srs International Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-Ii (Merged With M/S Btl Industries Ltd. Faridabad, Haryana (Later Merged With Btl Investment & Securities Ltd. Which Is Now Known As M/S Btl Holding Co. Ltd.) C/O Rra Taxindia, D-28, South Extension, Part-I, New Delhi – 49 (Pan: Aalcs2670Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv., Shri Deepesh Garg, Adv. & Sh. Saksham Agrawal, Ca Respondent By : Ms. Monika Dhami, Cit Dr

For Appellant: Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv., Shri Deepesh GargFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Dhami, CIT DR
Section 133ASection 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153A(1)(a)Section 153A(1)(b)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘F’’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI S

Yad Dharam Satya Trust, Delhi vs. CIT Exemptions, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 2037/DEL/2024[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jan 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Kaushal, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149(1)(a)Section 150Section 68

ITA No. 2037/DEL/2021 [A.Y. 2015-16] The Dy. C.I.T Vs. MG Housing Pvt Ltd IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

Shantiben K Rita, Goregaon West vs. ITO Ward 41(4)(4), Kautilya Bhavan

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3406/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sandeep Singh Karhailshantiben K Rita, 1601, Laburnum Tower, Sv Road, Goregaon West, ……………. Appellant Mumbai - 400104 Pan – Aecpr3455A V/S Ito, Ward-41(4)(4), ……………. Respondent Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai Maharashtra Assessee By : Shri Surji D. Chheda, Ca Revenue By : Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri Surji D. Chheda, CAFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 57

scrutiny primarily to verify the large deduction claimed under section 57 of the Act. In response to the statutory notices issued under section 143(2) and section 142(1) of the Act, the assessee submitted that she had incurred interest expenses amounting to Rs.1,43,17,550/- on loans availed

Nanikram Fatehchand Changlani, Ulhasnagar, Thane vs. ITO, Ward-2(5), Kalyan

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 2199/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Shri Prabhash Shankarnanikram Fatehchand V/S. Income Tax Officer, Ward – Changlani, 403, 4Th Floor, बनाम 2(5), Kalyan, Wayle Nagar, Manila Apartments, O.T. Khadakpada, Kalyan - 421 301, Section, Ulhasnagar - Maharashtra 421005, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aiypc1289P Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Suresh OtwaniFor Respondent: Shri Kiran Unavekar, (Sr. DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K(SMC)” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT

Subhash Chander Oberoi, Mumbai vs. Asst Commissioner of Income Tax - 26(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1667/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sandeep Singh Karhailsubhash Chander Oberoi, Saidham Building, Dr. Jawkar Lane, Sion Chunabhatti Road, Mumbai - 400022 ……………. Appellant Maharashtra Pan: Aadpo9185B V/S Acit, 26(3), Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, ……………. Respondent Mumbai - 400051 Maharashtra

For Appellant: Shri Dharan Gandhi, AdvFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule – CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 2(22)(e)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

total income of INR 1,99,74,690. 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 noticed from the balance-sheet

Parag Motilal Savla, Mumbai vs. Assessing Officer, NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 4221/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI BR BASKARAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 250Section 69

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘C’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI BR BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL

Mintu Das, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir. 28, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed as per terms indicated above

ITA 8/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.08/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Mintu Das………………………...………........………………....Appellant C/O S. N. Ghosh & Associates, Advocates, 2, Garstin Place, 2Nd Floor, Suite No.203, Kolkata –1. [Pan: Adppd3034M] Vs. Acit, Circle-28, Kolkata…….……….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Pradip Biswas, Addl. Cit- Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 21, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 06, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 13.11.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Pertaining To Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. In This Appeal, The Assessee Challenged The Validity Of The Assessment Proceedings Completed U/S 143(3) Of The Act & Consequent To That, An Addition Of Rs.69,42,916/- U/S 68 R.W.S. 115Bbe Of The Act & Further Addition Of A Sum Of Rs.4,86,004/- U/S 69 R.W.S. 115Bbe Of The Act. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income On 28.09.2015 By Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.16,50,920/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Compulsory

Section 10(38)Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68Section 69

aforesaid facts the following facts emerged: i) The assessee had filed return of income declaring Rs.50,28,040/-. The ITO issued notice under section 143(2) of the Act on 06.09.2013. ii) The ITO, Ward-1, Haldia taking note that the income returned was above Rs. 15 lacs transferred ... income of assessee was Rs. 12 lakhs - As per CBDT instruction, jurisdiction for scrutiny assessment vested in Income- tax Officer and notice under section 143(2) must be issued by Income-tax Officer, Ward- I, Haldia and none other - But, notice was issued by Asstt. Commissioner, Circle Haldia much after

Income Tax Officer, Kolkata vs. Uniglobal Papers Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2182/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Singh Construction Dcit, Central Circle-2 Corporation Aaykar Bhawan, Aayakar Bithi Nachan Rad, Bhiringee, City Centre, City Centre, Durgapur, Burdwan, Vs. Durgapur, West Bengal Kolkata 713213 Pin-713216 West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Abjfs8820N Assessee By : S/Shri Manoj Kataruka & Siddharth Ray, Ars Revenue By : Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, Dr Date Of Hearing: 04.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.12.2025

For Appellant: S/shri Manoj Kataruka &For Respondent: Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, DR
Section 143(2)Section 194CSection 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM

Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Kolkata vs. Uniglobal Papers Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, appeals of the Revenue and cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2181/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm]

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 250Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, KOLKATA [Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, AM & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, JM] I.T.A

Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Kolkata vs. Uniglobal Papers Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, appeals of the Revenue and cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2180/KOL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm]

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 250Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, KOLKATA [Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, AM & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, JM] I.T.A

DCIT, Central Circle 4(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, Poorva vs. Balajee Vinimay Private Limted, Ramnath Gowenka Marg, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1009/KOL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm]

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, KOLKATA [Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, AM& Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, JM] I.T.A

Cyient Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our above observation

ITA 913/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.913/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Shri Ankit Jain Vs. Acit Hyderabad Central Circle 1(2) Pan:Agwpa4459K Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri V. Ravish Bhatt, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 07/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 19/12/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, CAFor Respondent: : Shri V. Ravish Bhatt, Sr.DR
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151A(1)Section 292CSection 69

vested with the Jt. CIT(OSD) (Exemption), Bhuwaneshwar; (iii). it was the assessee's case that, as the jurisdiction to issue notice under Section 143(2) of the Act in its case was with the Jt. CIT (OSD)(Exemption), Bhuwaneshwar, therefore, the impugned notice issued u/s. 143(2

Suresh B. Agrawal HUF, Ahmedabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(4), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 74/AHD/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Jan 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “A” BENCH Before: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member And Shri Narendra Prasad

Devraj Builders, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT-3, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 124/AHD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37Section 37(1)

Assessment Year 2017-18 on 08.10.2017 declaring total income of Rs.95,73,800/-. The case was selected for scrutiny by issuing notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and assessment was finalised under Section 143(3) of the act on 18.07.2019 assessing the total income

Krishan Dev Verma, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward - 1, Bhiwani

ITA 1147/DEL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT-DR
Section 14Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 238Section 30(4)Section 31

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : C : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANUBHAV

Arvind Shashank HUF, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), Ahmedabad

ITA 460/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 210Section 234ASection 271(1)Section 271F

ITA No.460/Ahd/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Arvind Shashank HUF vs. ITO Page 1 of 4 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE