← 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)

Ramesh Chowdhury, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 31(4), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2123/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Jan 2026AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2015-16 Ramesh Chowdhury…………..……..………………….……….……….……Appellant 7, Padda Pukur Road, Kol – 700020. [Pan: Acspc5253B] Vs. Ito, Ward-31(4), Kolkata………...………………………......……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: S. K. Kamaluddin, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S B Chakraborthy, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 06, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 28, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 22.07.2025 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2015–16. 2. Facts In Brief Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed Its Original Return Of Income Declaring Income Of Rs. 8,68,870/- For The A.Y. 2015-16. Further The Case Of The Appellant Was Selected For The Scrutiny & The Notice U/S. 143(2) Was Issued. The Assessment Was Completed U/S 143(3) Of Act After Making The Disallowance On Account Of Sundry Creditors Bills Amounting To Rs.38,35,643/-. The Assessing Officer Also Initiated Penalty Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) Of Act.

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH KOLKATA Before Shri Rajesh

Ascon Infrastructure (India) Ltd., Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 9(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2109/KOL/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Jan 2026AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 234CSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 43C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘A’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT

Citywings Agencies Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 3(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2045/KOL/2025[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Jan 2026AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2010-11 Citywings Agencies Pvt. Ltd...……..………………….……….……….……Appellant East India House, Room No.1A, 20B, British India Street, Kol-69. [Pan: Aaccc7832K] Vs. Ito, Ward-3(1), Kolkata…………………………..…….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manish Tiwari, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sanjib Kr. Paul, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 19, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 28, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 02.07.2025 Of The Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2010–11. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Company & Return Of Income Was Filed For The Assessment Year 2010-11 Declaring A Total Loss Of Rs.1,72,820/-. The Assessing Officer Got Information That The Assessee Had During The Relevant Assessment Year Under Consideration Received A Total Amount Of Rs.99,00,000/- From One M/S Long View Tie Up Pvt Ltd. Therefore, Notice U/S 148 Was Issued & In Response To The Notice U/S 148, The Assessee Declared A Total Loss Of Citywings Agencies Pvt. Ltd Rs.1,72,820/- . Thereafter, Notices U/S 143(2)/142(1) Of The Act Were Issued. The Assessment Order Determining Total Income At Rs.97,27,180/- Whereby Making Addition Of Rs.99,00,000/- U/S 68 Of The Act.

Section 143(2)Section 148Section 250Section 68

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH KOLKATA Before Shri Rajesh

DCIT, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata vs. Golden Goenka Credit Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1799/KOL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Accountant Member), Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey (Judicial Member)

Section 127Section 132(1)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(iii)Section 68

conducted any inquiry with respect to source of repayment of loan. I have examined the statutory notices issued by the AO under section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act and I find that nowhere in the said notices the AO has sought details in respect of the source ... footwear and leather and non-leather accessories. It had filed its return of income and same was selected for scrutiny. Subsequently, notices under sections 143(2) and 142(2) were issued on it. b)The Assessing Officer noted that the assessee had received certain amount of unsecured loans from various

R Rampuria Consultants Private Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle 5(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1626/KOL/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Jan 2026AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Accountant Member), Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey (Judicial Member)

Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250Section 68

Rampuria Consultants Pvt. Ltd “The short issue which falls for consideration in the instant case is whether there is valid notice issued under Section 143 (2) of the Act for commencing the Scrutiny assessment. The Tribunal has noted the facts and rendered a finding that on the date when ... that the assessee filed its return of income 5 R Rampuria Consultants Pvt. Ltd declaring the income to be nil. Subsequently, notice under section 143(2) was issued on 10.9.2015 and notice under section 142(1) dated 13.6.2016 was issued along with the questionnaire. The assessee contended that the notices

Sanowar Ali Khan, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 25(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1503/KOL/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Jan 2026AY 2022-2023

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 271ASection 282

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘D’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT

Mala Singh, Howrah vs. I.T.O., Ward - 47(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 1317/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Jan 2026AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘C’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT

V S Trust, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-3(5), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2633/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

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

For Appellant: Mr.Vikram VijayaraghavanFor Respondent: Mr.Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 234DSection 250Section 270ASection 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(x)

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

World Resorts Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward (4)(1)(4), Bangalore

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

ITA 1540/BANG/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(2)Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

Vaibhav Tewari, Lucknow vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 7737/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Bijayananda Prusethvaibhav Tewari, Vs. Cit(A), Kautilya Bhawan, Mumbai- 88 Krishna Niwas, Society 400051. Park Narhi, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh-226001. Pan/Gir No: Aecpt2741P (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 10Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151ASection 250Section 80D

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH

Anis Abdulkadar Nakhawaji, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 41(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands partly

ITA 7231/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2026AY 2012-13
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

PAGE 1 ITA No.7231/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-13 ANIS Nakhawaji Abdulkadar Vs. ITO Ward 41(1)(1), Mumbai A/904, Shiv

Premji Bhurlal Gala, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT Rang 24(1), Mumbai

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 6596/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Bijayananda Prusethassessment Year: 2016-17 Premji Bhurlal Gala Addl. Cit Range 24(1), B-301, Water Ford, Cd Mumbai Barfiwala Road Juhu Fally Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C- Vs. Andheri West, Mumbai - 43, G Block, Bandra Kurla 400058 Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai – 400051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal & Satish Kumar, Ld. A. Rs. Revenue By : Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 09.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.01.2026 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 23.09.2025, Impugned Herein, Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2016-17. 2. In The Instant Case, The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened Under Section 147 Of The Act, On The Basis Of Search & Survey Action Under Section 132 Of The Act Carried Out In The Case Of M/S. Evergreen Enterprises, Wherein The Statement Of The Partner In M/S. Evergreen Enterprises, Mr. Nilesh Bharani Was Recorded Under Section 132(4) Of The Act, Unearthing An Undisclosed Activity, 2 Premji Bhurlal Gala

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal & SatishFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, SR. D.R
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 269SSection 271Section 271D

Assessee filed his return of income dated 23.04.2021 declaring total income of Rs. 24,62,230/-. 4. Thereafter, notice dated 10.12.2021 under Section 143(2) was issued to the Assessee by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO). 5. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer initially issued a notice dated 12.01.2022 under Section

Shamji Kanji Zaru, Kutch vs. DCIT, Central Circle-6(4), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are stands allowed

ITA 6090/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 44A

filed an appeal against the assessment order. It is further submitted that only two notices were issued, both dated 14.03.2024 i.e., notice under section 143(2) and notice under section 142(1), requiring the assessee to respond within five days. Thus, due to the inadvertent mistake on the part ... appeal was filed. Hence, the presumption that the assessee had received the assessment order but chose not to respond to the notices under sections 143(2) and 142(1) is purely speculative. However, the AO, without duly considering this aspect, summarily rejected the assessee's contention without providing cogent reasons

Shamji Kanji Zaru, Anjar vs. DCIT, Central Circle-6(4), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are stands allowed

ITA 6089/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 44A

filed an appeal against the assessment order. It is further submitted that only two notices were issued, both dated 14.03.2024 i.e., notice under section 143(2) and notice under section 142(1), requiring the assessee to respond within five days. Thus, due to the inadvertent mistake on the part ... appeal was filed. Hence, the presumption that the assessee had received the assessment order but chose not to respond to the notices under sections 143(2) and 142(1) is purely speculative. However, the AO, without duly considering this aspect, summarily rejected the assessee's contention without providing cogent reasons

Shamji Kanji Zaru, Kutch vs. DCIT, Central Circle-6(4), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are stands allowed

ITA 6088/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 44A

filed an appeal against the assessment order. It is further submitted that only two notices were issued, both dated 14.03.2024 i.e., notice under section 143(2) and notice under section 142(1), requiring the assessee to respond within five days. Thus, due to the inadvertent mistake on the part ... appeal was filed. Hence, the presumption that the assessee had received the assessment order but chose not to respond to the notices under sections 143(2) and 142(1) is purely speculative. However, the AO, without duly considering this aspect, summarily rejected the assessee's contention without providing cogent reasons

Shamji Kanji Zaru, Anjar vs. DCIT, Central Circle-6(4), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are stands allowed

ITA 6087/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 44A

filed an appeal against the assessment order. It is further submitted that only two notices were issued, both dated 14.03.2024 i.e., notice under section 143(2) and notice under section 142(1), requiring the assessee to respond within five days. Thus, due to the inadvertent mistake on the part ... appeal was filed. Hence, the presumption that the assessee had received the assessment order but chose not to respond to the notices under sections 143(2) and 142(1) is purely speculative. However, the AO, without duly considering this aspect, summarily rejected the assessee's contention without providing cogent reasons

Shamji Kanji Zaru, Anjar vs. DCIT, Central Circle-6(4), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are stands allowed

ITA 6086/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 44A

filed an appeal against the assessment order. It is further submitted that only two notices were issued, both dated 14.03.2024 i.e., notice under section 143(2) and notice under section 142(1), requiring the assessee to respond within five days. Thus, due to the inadvertent mistake on the part ... appeal was filed. Hence, the presumption that the assessee had received the assessment order but chose not to respond to the notices under sections 143(2) and 142(1) is purely speculative. However, the AO, without duly considering this aspect, summarily rejected the assessee's contention without providing cogent reasons

Shamji Kanji Zaru, Anjar vs. DCIT, Central Circle-6(4), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are stands allowed

ITA 6085/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 44A

filed an appeal against the assessment order. It is further submitted that only two notices were issued, both dated 14.03.2024 i.e., notice under section 143(2) and notice under section 142(1), requiring the assessee to respond within five days. Thus, due to the inadvertent mistake on the part ... appeal was filed. Hence, the presumption that the assessee had received the assessment order but chose not to respond to the notices under sections 143(2) and 142(1) is purely speculative. However, the AO, without duly considering this aspect, summarily rejected the assessee's contention without providing cogent reasons

Shamji Kanji Zaru, Anjar vs. DCIT, Central Circle-6(4), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are stands allowed

ITA 6084/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 44A

filed an appeal against the assessment order. It is further submitted that only two notices were issued, both dated 14.03.2024 i.e., notice under section 143(2) and notice under section 142(1), requiring the assessee to respond within five days. Thus, due to the inadvertent mistake on the part ... appeal was filed. Hence, the presumption that the assessee had received the assessment order but chose not to respond to the notices under sections 143(2) and 142(1) is purely speculative. However, the AO, without duly considering this aspect, summarily rejected the assessee's contention without providing cogent reasons

Astoria Agro and Allied Industries Pvt Ltd, Nandurbar vs. DCIT-Central Circle 4(3), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4733/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR (Accountant Member)

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 271(1)(b)Section 69A

dated 28.12.2021. The assessee again filed objections on 03.01.2022, which were replied to vide letter dated 25.01.2022. 6. Subsequently, statutory notice under section 143(2) dated 24.06.2021 was issued, followed by notices under section 142(1) along with questionnaires through the ITBA portal on 08.12.2021 and 20.12.2021 calling for various