← 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)

The Muslim Education Soc, Ratnagiri vs. Income Tax Officer, Ratnagiri

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

ITA 588/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.588/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 The Muslim Education Soc., Vs. Ito, Ratnagiri. Saitavade, Ratnagiri- 415613 Pan : Aaatt8659C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Pramod Shingte Revenue By : Shri Manoj Tripathi Date Of Hearing : 30.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.05.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 11.03.2024 Passed By Ld Addl/Jcit(A)-2, Ahmedabad For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition By The A.O. U/S 69A Of Rs. 13,17,470/- As Unexplained Money In Respect Of Cash Deposited In Bank Account, In Spite Of The Appellant Having A Clear Explanation For The Source Of Investment. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add To, Amend, Alter, Delete Or Modify All Or Any Of The Above Ground Of Appeal Or Raise A New Ground Of Appeal Before Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Tripathi
Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY

Vinayak Shivaji Kand, Pune vs. ITO, Ward 12(3), Pune

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

ITA 388/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: the filing of appeal and challan for the same was uploaded with the appeal. Further, both the payments are reflecting in Form 26AS. 2. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) is erred in treating Rs.1,00,00,000/- as an unexplained investment u/s 69. 3. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) is erred in treating Rs.6,00,000/- as an unexplained investment u/s 69. 4. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A)

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 249(4)Section 250Section 69

।आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ”बी” "ायपीठ पुणेम"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “B” :: PUNE BEFOREMS.ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1), Pune vs. Enterprisedb Software India Private Limited, Pune

ITA 989/PUN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Hon’Ble Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 989/Pun/2023 & Co No. 008/Pun/2024 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Pune . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

For Appellant: Mr Rajendra Agiwal [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Ms Sonal Sonkavde [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 1Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 195Section 195(1)Section 246A(1)Section 250Section 253(2)Section 40

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PUNE ‘C’ BENCH, PUNE BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI G. D. PADMAHSHALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND

Barbate Automotive (India) Private Ltd, Nagpur vs. DCIT/ACIT Circle-3, Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 168/NAG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur16 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay ThakarFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 312Section 34(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43Section 438Section 43B

return of income on 22/10/2018, declaring a total income of ` 1,98,31,510. The case was selected for scrutiny and notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 21/09/2018, which was duly served. The Assessing Officer concluded assessment under section 143

Maheshkumar Hargovind Goyal, Nagpur vs. Ward 1(2), Nagpur

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

ITA 322/NAG/2023[AY 2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur16 May 2024

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Smt. Veena AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68

filed his return of income for the year under consideration on 21/12/2018, declaring total income of ` 7,24,101. Therefore, the notice under section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued on ITBA. It is stated by the Assessing Officer that the assessee filed written reply

Mohammed Gyasuddin, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir.-30, Kolkata

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

ITA 571/KOL/2020[2012-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 May 2024AY 2012-12

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 269SSection 271D

such notice the assessee filed its return of income declaring a total income of Rs. 23,440/-. Subsequently, notices were issued under sections 143(2), 142(1) of the Act and the assessee filed his response along with documents. The Assessing Officer on considering the documents and the return furnished

Mohammed Gyasuddin, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir.-30, Kolkata

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

ITA 570/KOL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 269SSection 271D

such notice the assessee filed its return of income declaring a total income of Rs. 23,440/-. Subsequently, notices were issued under sections 143(2), 142(1) of the Act and the assessee filed his response along with documents. The Assessing Officer on considering the documents and the return furnished

Microchip Technology (India) Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. DCIT Circle 4(1)(1), Bmtc Building, Koramangala

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

ITA 817/BANG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Sumeet Khurana, CAFor Respondent: Shri Biju M.K., CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 25oSection 270ASection 37Section 92C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL

Hardcore Viniyog P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-13, New Delhi

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

ITA 573/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Delhi16 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Kumar Jha, CIT-DR
Section 119Section 143(2)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘C’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI NAVEEN

The Vejalpur Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ltd., Panchmahal vs. The Asstt.CIT., Anand Circle, Anand

ITA 1031/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member), Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sakar Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Shri H. Phani Raju, CIT-D.R
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 269Section 269SSection 292BSection 51Section 69A

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “A” BENCH Before: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member And Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member

The Vejalpur Nagrik Sahakari Bank Limited, Panchmahal vs. The Asstt. CIT., Anand Circle, Anand

ITA 1030/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member), Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sakar Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Shri H. Phani Raju, CIT-D.R
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 269Section 269SSection 292BSection 51Section 69A

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “A” BENCH Before: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member And Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member

Twara Diam, Bhavnagar vs. PCIT Ahmedabad-1, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 90/AHD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Adv., Shri Parimalsinh BFor Respondent: Shri Karun K Ojha, CIT D.R
Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(3)Section 263Section 69A

Assessing Officer, reveals that the original return filed by the Assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment through CASS and notice under Section 143(2) of the Act issued and served upon the Assessee on 29.8.2011. On 2.3.2012, in exercise of his right under Section 139(5), Assessee filed a revised

The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2 (1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Intas Pharmaceuticals Limited, Ahmedabad

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Assessee as well as Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2128/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 35

income of Rs.272,16,04,548/- under Section 115JB of the Act. The case was selected for scrutiny. Notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 09.08.2013 and was duly served upon the assessee. Thereafter, notice under Section 142(1) of the Act was issued

Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2 (1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Assessee as well as Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1787/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 35

income of Rs.272,16,04,548/- under Section 115JB of the Act. The case was selected for scrutiny. Notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 09.08.2013 and was duly served upon the assessee. Thereafter, notice under Section 142(1) of the Act was issued

Tirumala Construction, Nashik vs. ITO, Ward 2(4), Nashik

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

ITA 584/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Tripathi
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY

Dev Darshan Designs Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 14(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 34/KOL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.34/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dev Darshan Designs Pvt. Ltd.……….......................…...……………....Appellant P-40, 1St Floor, Kajinajrul Islam Avenue, Kolkata-700157. [Pan: Aadcd1890P] Vs. Ito, Ward-14(1), Kolkata….……............…..........................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sunil Surana, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Department. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 09, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 15, 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 07.11.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Agitated Against The Confirmation Of Addition Of Rs.2,67,60,000/- Made By The Assessing Officer On Protective Basis In Respect Of The Loan Amount Received By The Assessee From One Of Its Director & His Relatives. 3. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year Under Consideration Declaring A Total

Section 143(2)Section 250Section 68

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ ‘बी’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH KOLKATA "ी संजय गग

Seikh Abubakkar Warish, Kanaidanga vs. PCIT, Asansol.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 915/KOL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(2)Section 263

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH ‘B’, KOLKATA [Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial

ITO, WD.9(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Maharaj Vincom Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 35/KOL/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 May 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.35/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ito, Ward-9(1), Kolkata……………….......................…...……………....Appellant Vs. M/S Maharaj Vincom Pvt. Ltd……............…..........................…..…..... Respondent 69, Jamunalal Bajaj Street, Kolkata- 700007. [Pan: Aafcm6496E] C.O. No.6/Kol/2023 (A/O I.T.A. No.35/Kol/2021) Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Maharaj Vincom Pvt. Ltd……............…..........................…....... Cross-Objector 69, Jamunalal Bajaj Street, Kolkata- 700007. [Pan: Aafcm6496E] Vs Ito, Ward-9(1), Kolkata …………..….......................…...……………....Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Department. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 07, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 15, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: This Appeal By The Revenue & Corresponding Cross-Objection By The Assessee Have Been Preferred Against The Order Dated 08.09.2020 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’).

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 263

this case has been filed by the assessee on 31.08.2009. The ld. counsel has further submitted that as per the 1st Proviso to section 143(2) of the Act as applicable for the assessment year under consideration, the Assessing Officer, if intended to scrutinise the return of income ... counsel. In this case, return of income was filed under section 139(4) of the Act on March 15, 2000, and notice under section 143(2) for framing assessment under section 143(3) could have been issued up to March 31, 2000. Therefore, a valid return of income was pending

Mr. Pratapsingh Bankatsingh Rajput, Viyayapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Bijapur

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

ITA 622/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Smt. Sunaina Bhatia, Advocate
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC-‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT BEENA PILLAI

Felie Amit Bavisi, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 28(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assesse are partly allowed

ITA 508/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawali T A. Nos. 507 & 508/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2009-10 & 2010-11) Felie Amit Bavisi Vs Ito-Ward-28(1)(3), Room No. 15B, 610, Thacker Tower Chs, . Aayakar Bhavan, Plot No. 86, M.K.Road, Sector -17 Vashi, Mumbai-400020. Navi Mumbai-400706. Pan/Gir No. Abypb8391E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 133(6)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, “F” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT