← 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)

Suresh M. Bhathija (HUF), Mumbai vs. ITO WD 23(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2561/MUM/2022[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhbhathija Suresh M (Huf) Vs. Income Tax Officer 120 Dakshinpali, D Monte 23(3)(1), Mumbai Park Road Pali Hill Mumbai 400050 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaahs 8289 M Appellant .. Respondent [ Appellant By : Ms. Rutuja N Pawar& Ms. Sneha More Respondent By : Shri Yogendra T Wakare Date Of Hearing 31.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 27.09.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Nfac (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 15.09.2022 For A.Y. 2006-07. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. The Learned Cit(Appeals) Was Not Justified In Confirming The Action Of The Learned Assessing Officer In Bringing To Tax An Amount Of Rs. 90,92,165/- As Long Term Capital Gains On Sale Of Land. 2. The Learned Cit(Appeals) & The Learned Assessing Officer Failed To Appreciate That The Said Land Was An Agricultural Land & Was Not A Capital Asset. 3. Without Prejudice To The Above Grounds Of Appeal, The Learned Cit(Appeals) & The Learned Assessing Officer Were Not Justified In Disallowing The Claim For Expenses Of Rs. 69,00,000/- While Computing The Long Term Capital Gains.

For Appellant: Ms. Rutuja N Pawar&For Respondent: Shri Yogendra T Wakare
Section 143(2)Section 50C

P a g e | 1 Suresh M. Bhathija (HUF) vs. ITO IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI