← 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)

Harbans Singh Bagga, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-11(1), Kolkata.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1231/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Rajesh Kumari.T.A No.1231/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Harbans Singh Bagga.…....………………………… ........................……Appellant A-7 Rajasthali, No-3 Jamadar Khan Lane Near Copper House, Kolkata – 700019. [Pan: Afbpb0526J] Vs. Dcit, Circle-11(1), Kolkata................…................…........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sunil Surana, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 13, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 11, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 22.09.2023 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’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Contested The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer Of Rs.1,14,41,888/- Treating The Long-Term Capital Gains Claimed By The Assessee As Bogus. The Assessee Has Contested The Validity Of The Aforesaid Additions Not Only On Merits But Also On The Ground That The Concerned Assessing Officer Did Not Have The Pecuniary Jurisdiction To Pass The Assessment Order In Question By Way Of Additional Legal Ground. Since The Additional Legal Ground Taken By The

Section 120Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

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. I.T.A No.1231/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Harbans Singh Bagga ii) The ITO, Ward-1, Haldia taking note that ... 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

Assistant Commisioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Capital First Limited Now Merged With Idfc First Bank Limited, Chennai

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

ITA 1673/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1673/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Capital First Limited Now Merged With Income Tax, Idfc First Bank Limited, Krm Tower, 7Th Floor, No. 1, Harrington Road, Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai 600 034. Chetpet, Chennai 600 031. [Pan:Aacck6863C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri V. Nandakumar, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ketan Ved, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 04.09.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11.09.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 14.03.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. We Find That This Appeal Was Filed With A Delay Of 21 Days. The Appellant-Revenue Filed An Affidavit Stating Reasons For The Said Delay. On Perusal Of The Same & Upon Hearing Both The Parties, We Find That The 2

For Appellant: Shri V. Nandakumar, CITFor Respondent: Shri Ketan Ved, C.A
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14A

return of income was duly processed under section 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny and notices under section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued. According to the Assessing Officer, the assessee made investment during the year under consideration and earned

DCIT, Chennai vs. M/S Ruby Realty Pvt. Ltd, Chennai

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

ITA 1030/CHNY/2022[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Sept 2024AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1030/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Ruby Realty Private Limited, Income Tax, Office B 908, Radiance Shine Central Circle 3(4), Apartments, Kazhipattur Omr, Chennai 600 034. Chennai 603 103. [Pan:Aadcr2832B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri V. Nandakumar, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Murali Mohana Rao, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 29.08.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11.09.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 22.09.2022 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 18, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. The Appellant-Revenue Raised 4 Grounds Of Appeal Amongst Which, The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration Is As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Justified In Restricting The Addition To An Extent Of ₹.82.35 Lakhs In Respect Of Proportionate Share Of Land In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri V. Nandakumar, CITFor Respondent: Shri P. Murali Mohana Rao, C.A
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153C

treat the return filed on 27.09.2008 as return of income in terms of notice under section 153C of the Act. Notices under section 143(2) and under section 142(1) of the Act were issued and the assessment was completed based on the facts presented and details furnished, inter alia