← 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)

Vineet Gupta, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-16, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1515/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Vineet Gupta Vs Acit E-1/6, Krishna Nagar, Delhi Central Circle -16 Delhi-110051 New Delhi Pan No.Ahcpg7378Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellants By Sh. C.S. Anand, Advocate Ms. Sarthak Upadhyay, Advocate Sh. Vaishnavi Yadav, Advocate Respondent By Sh. B.S. Anand, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 05/09/2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 08/10/2024 Order Per Sudhir Kumar, Jm: The Above Captioned Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Nfac/Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], Vide Order Dated 17.03.2023 Pertaining To A.Y.2017-18 Arises Out Of The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Dated 30.12.2018 U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act,1961[Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’]

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69Section 69A

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘H’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND

Crystal Glazing & Cladding, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(1), Pune

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

ITA 93/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P BoraFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 37(1)Section 68Section 69Section 69ASection 69C

delay stating as under : “The assessee was not aware of the fact that their case has been selected for Scrutiny under section 143(2). The communication took place through e- mail and the e-mail id mentioned on the Income Tax e-filing portal belongs to the Chartered Accountant

DCIT, Pune vs. John Deere India Private Limited, Pune

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

ITA 1184/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath Murkunde
Section 143(2)Section 14A

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

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Hyderabad vs. Sew Infrastructure Limited, Hyderabad

ITA 1717/HYD/2017[2009-10]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad07 Oct 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang, Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri K.K. ChaitanyaFor Respondent: Smt. Mamata Choudhary
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153ASection 80I

that point of time assessment in the case of assessee for the assessment year 2008-09 was pending scrutiny since notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued and assessment was not completed. Therefore, in view of the second proviso to Section 153A of the said Act, once

Umang Nemani, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 44(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee isallowed

ITA 906/KOL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: the Tribunal. On this aspect assessee had filed petition praying for condonation of such delay.

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 250Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH KOLKATA Shri Manish Borad, Judicial Member Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Accountant Member I.T.A

Maa Sharada Enterprise, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-50(1), Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 586/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 586/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Maa Sharada Enterprise,……..………….……Appellant Talbabnda Jugberia, Ghola, North 24-Parganas, Pin Code No.700110, West Bengal [Pan:Aatfm5656M] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………………….……Respondent Ward-50(1), Kolkata, Income Tax Office, Manicktala, Civil Centre, Uttarapan Complex-Ds-Iv, Kolkata-700067 Appearances By: Shri Giridhar Dhelia, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Kapil Mondal, Addl. Cit (Dr), Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: September 09, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: October 07, 2024 O R D E R

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 69A

According to the ld. Assessing Officer, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS and a notice under section 143(2) was issued and served upon the assessee. On scrutiny of the accounts, it revealed to the ld. Assessing Officer that during demonetization period between 8th November ... assessee has filed an application for permission to raise additional ground of appeal, whereby it has been pleaded that statutory notice under section 143(2) was issued by ITO, Ward-10(1), Kolkata, who does not have jurisdiction of the case and thereafter assessment was completed by ITO, Ward

Sharda Kanoria, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-30, Kolkata.

In the result, appeal of the assessee isallowed

ITA 797/KOL/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Oct 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Manish Borad, Accountant Member Shri Sonjoy Sarma (Judicial Member)

Section 139(1)Section 142(3)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

issued on 30.03.2016. In response, the assessee requested the reasons of reopening the case which were provided on 24.06.2016 along with notice under Section 143(2) of the Act. The reasons recorded for reopening included in the alleged misuse of CCM facility by the assessee, resulting in bogus loss

Kiran Gupta, Indore vs. ITO, Mandsaur

Appeal is allowed

ITA 403/IND/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore07 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2011-12 Kiran Gupta Ito, C/O, G.B. Agarwal & Co. Mandsaur Chartered Accountants, 252, Vikram Tower, बनाम/ First Floor, Vs. Sapna Sangeeta Road, Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Arcpg6416B Assessee By Shri Ankur Agarwal & G.B. Agarwal, Cas & Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 07.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 07.10.2024

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

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, इंदौर "ायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO

M/S Tamilnadu State Marketing Corporation Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Corporate Circle-3(1), Chennai

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

ITA 431/CHNY/2023[F.Y.2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Oct 2024

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 69

array atresia, a" Hae, deat IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI stage fae, sorewer va st Aalst

Anjuman E Shiateali, Mumbai vs. CIT(Exemption), Mumbai

ITA 2372/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shrianikesh Banerjee, Jm A.Y.2018-19 Anjuman-E-Shiateali, Cit(Exemption), Taj Building 1St Floor, Mumbai 210, Departmental Vs. Representative Dn Road Mumbai, G.P.O. Mumbai-400001

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 144BSection 263Section 50C

A Y : 2018–19 Anjuman-E Shiateali Versus CIT(Exemption), Mumbai IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI

Dhoot Industrial Finance Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Centralized Processing Centre, Bangaluru

ITA 1481/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI NARNEDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Shri R.R.Makwana
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

income for the Assessment Year 2018-2019 on 26/09/2018. Subsequently, the case of the Appellant was selected for scrutiny and notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 23/09/2019. During the pendency of the scrutiny proceedings the return of income filed by the Appellant was processed ... whereby the business income of the Appellant was increased by INR.70,34,565/-. Since the notice, dated 23/09/2019, was issued under Section 143(2) of the Act prior to the passing of the intimation order, dated 31/10/2019, the Appellant was under the bonafide belief that the issue would also

Smt. Smita Ashok Thakkar, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 6(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 4386/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Smt. Smita Ashok Thakkar Dcit, Central Circle 6(4) 1St Floor, Karimjee Building, Room No. 1925, 19Th Floor, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Vs. Air India Building, Mumbai-400 001 Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh P. ShahFor Respondent: Shri B. Laxmi Kanth
Section 143(2)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM Smt

Vasant Hirachand Rathod, Kolhapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward1(4), Kolhapur

The appeal is PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES

ITA 1385/PUN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Smt Astha Chandra & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliassessment Year : 2017-18 Vasant Hirachand Rathod 461, B-Ward, Bhawani Chambers, Bhawani Mandap, Juna Rajwada, Kolhapur-416002. Pan: Aeupr6755D. . . . . . . . Appellant

For Appellant: Mr Pramod Shingate [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Arvind Desai [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253(1)Section 44ASection 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘B’ BENCH PUNE BEFORE HON’BLE SMT ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER And SHRI G

Sanga Automobiles (P) Ltd, Jaipur vs. The ACIT, Circle - 7, Jaipur

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

ITA 911/JPR/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Oct 2024AY 2017-2018

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

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh (Addl.CIT) a
Section 144Section 250

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

Federation of Rajasthan Trade and Industry, Jaipur vs. ITO-Exemption Ward-2, Jaipur

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

ITA 217/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Pandya (Adv.) &For Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh (Addl.CIT) a
Section 127Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

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

Rajesh Kumar Goyal, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(5), Jaipur

In the result, appeal stands dismissed with no order as to costs

ITA 1079/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Chaudhary, JCIT D/R
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250

hereby thus prayed to delete the additions so made. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the notice under section 143(2) issued by ld. AO was unsigned and hence invalid. It is thus hereby prayed to quash the said notice and assessment order passed in pursuance ... Kumar Goyal, Jaipur. Act, 1961 by the CPC. The case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS. Accordingly, notice under section 143(2) of the IT Act, 1961 was issued on 29.06.2017 and duly served on the assessee. In response to the notice under section 143(2

Nisha Bhradwaj, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 3 (3), Jaipur

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

ITA 617/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Oct 2024AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Anil Kaushik (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh (Addl.CIT)
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR डा० एस. सीतालक्ष्मी, न्यायिक

Sandeep Jain, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 178/JPR/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Oct 2024AY 2017-2018

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

For Appellant: Shri Amit Mudra (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Anup Singh (Addl. CIT)
Section 139(5)Section 143(2)Section 90

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

Ace Cabs Limited, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-1(2), Delhi, C R Building

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 443/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanace Cabs Limited, Vs. Acit, Circle 1 (2), 562, Silver Oak Lane, Delhi. M.G. Road, Ghitorni, Delhi – 110 030. (Pan : Aaica4494R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gaurav Jain, Advocate Ms. Bharti Sharma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 23.07.2024 Date Of Order : 04.10.2024 Order Per S.Rifaur Rahman,Am: 1. This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), New Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short]/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Dated 12.12.2023 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Submitted An Application Under Rule 29 Of The Itat Rules For Admitting The Additional Evidences & The Contents Thereof Are Reproduced Below:-

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

assessee was selected for scrutiny through CASS for the reason of large share premium received during the year and accordingly, a notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 23.08.2018. Thereafter, various notices under section 142(1) were issued to the assessee which were duly responded

Brugg Cables (India) P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 1(3), Gurgaon

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

ITA 2941/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanbrugg Cables (India) P. Ltd., Vs. Ito, Ward 1(3), C/O Shri Kapil Goel, Advocate, Gurgaon. F-26/124, Sector 7, Rohini, New Delhi – 110 085. (Pan : Aafcb2037E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Satyajeet Goel, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 01.08.2024 Date Of Order : 04.10.2024 Order Per S.Rifaur Rahman,Am: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 21.08.2023 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 20.11.2017 & Subsequently, Revised It On 05.06.2018 Declaring A Loss Of Rs.72,09,630/- For The Ay 2017-18. The Case Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny Through Cass For The Reason “Exports/Imports, Claim Of Any Other Amount

For Appellant: Shri Satyajeet Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 69C

limited scrutiny through CASS for the reason “Exports/Imports, claim of any other amount 2 allowable as deduction in Schedule BP”. Accordingly, notices under section 143(2) & 142(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) were issued and served on the assessee along with questionnaire. 3. During