← 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)

Shri Bhanvarlal Champalal Kanuga, Unjha vs. The Pr. CIT-3, Ahmeabad

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

ITA 95/AHD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.95/Ahd/2022 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shri Bhanvarlal Champalal The Principal Cit बनाम/ Kanuga Range-3 C/O. Ketan H. Shah, Advocate Pratyakash Kar Bhavan V/S. 512, Times Square – I Ahmedabad Opp. Ram Baug Bungalows Nr. Ravija Plaza Thaltej-Shilaj Road Ahmedabad – 380 059. (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Acmpk 0172 H अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ketan H. Shah, Ar & Shri Aman Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Pushpendra Singh Chaudhary, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 07/08/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/08/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee As Against The Order Dated 29/03/2022 Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-3, Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As “Pcit(A)” In Short] In Exercise Of The Shri Bhanvarlal Champalal Kanuga Vs. Pr.Cit-3 Asst. Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Ketan H. Shah, AR &For Respondent: Shri Pushpendra Singh
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

Rs.25,66,680/-. The return was processed u/s.143(1) of the Act and, later, taken up for scrutiny under CASS. Notices under sections 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act along with the questionnaire were issued. Based on the various replies submitted by the assessee and the hearing conducted

Tirumurugan Traders, Erode vs. ITO, Ward-1(1). Erode, Erode

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

ITA 268/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.267 & 268/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 Thirumurugan Traders, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 11-B, East Kongalamman Koil Street, Ward 1(1), Erode 638 001. Erode. [Pan: Aabft2766P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate, Erode. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.08.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.08.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Both Dated 04.12.2023 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac Delhi For The Assessment Years 2015-16 & 2016-17. 2. Since Both The Appeals Are Filed By Same Assessee & Issues Raised In The Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of The Both The Parties, We Proceed To Hear Both The Appeals Together & Pass Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate, ErodeFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

revised return, but treated the revised return of income as invalid, is not correct. He drew our attention to the notice under section 143(2) of the Act dated 18.09.2017 and submits that the said notice was also issued in response to revised return of income and considering the reply ... given by the assessee therein, in response to the said notice under 3 I.T.A. Nos.267 & 268/Chny/24 section 143(2) of the Act, the Assessing Officer made the impugned addition, which is not maintainable. He argued that the ld. CIT(A) erred in considering the fact that the Assessing Officer issued

Tirumurugan Traders, Erode vs. ITO, Ward -1(1), Erode

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

ITA 267/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.267 & 268/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 Thirumurugan Traders, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 11-B, East Kongalamman Koil Street, Ward 1(1), Erode 638 001. Erode. [Pan: Aabft2766P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate, Erode. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.08.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.08.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Both Dated 04.12.2023 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac Delhi For The Assessment Years 2015-16 & 2016-17. 2. Since Both The Appeals Are Filed By Same Assessee & Issues Raised In The Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of The Both The Parties, We Proceed To Hear Both The Appeals Together & Pass Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate, ErodeFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

revised return, but treated the revised return of income as invalid, is not correct. He drew our attention to the notice under section 143(2) of the Act dated 18.09.2017 and submits that the said notice was also issued in response to revised return of income and considering the reply ... given by the assessee therein, in response to the said notice under 3 I.T.A. Nos.267 & 268/Chny/24 section 143(2) of the Act, the Assessing Officer made the impugned addition, which is not maintainable. He argued that the ld. CIT(A) erred in considering the fact that the Assessing Officer issued