← 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)

ACIT Central Circle-30, New Delhi vs. Kamana Industries Pvt Ltd, Sonipat

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4997/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2013-14 Acit, Vs Kamana Industries Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-30, Piau Maniyari, New Delhi. Narela Road, Kundli, Sonepat, Haryana – 131 028. Pan Aabck7580K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.C. Yadav & Shri Shivam Garg, Advocate Revenue By : Ms Sapna Bhatia, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 01.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.07.2023 Order Per M. Balaganesh, Am: This Appeal In Ita No.4997/Del/2019 For Ay 2013-14 Arises Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-30, New Delhi, In Appeal No.172/16- 17/2606 Dated 13.03.2019 [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Cit(A)’, In Short] Against The Order Of Assessment Passed U/S 153A Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 29.12.2016 By The Ld. Income-Tax Officer, Central Circle-30, New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Ao’). 2. The Only Issue To Be Decided In This Appeal Is As To Whether The Ld.Cit(A) Was Justified In Deleting The Addition Made On Account Of Share Capital Received By The Assessee In The Sum Of Rs.7,10,00,000/- In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Instant Case.

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Yadav &For Respondent: Ms Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153ASection 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : H : DELHI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH

Sanjay Vrajlal Kothari, Mumbai vs. CIT (Appeals), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1276/MUM/2023[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2023AY 2006-2007

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhsanjay Vrajlal Kothari Vs. Ito Ward 25(2)(3) B-603, Shroff Apts, Mumbai Sodawala Lane, Borivali (West), Mumbai – 400092 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Agppk5426K Appellant .. Respondent [ Appellant By : Anil Thakrar Respondent By : Suresh D. Gaikwad Date Of Hearing 13.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 26.07.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): The Appeal Filed By The Assesse Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) Nfac, Dated 15.03.2023 For A.Y. 2006-07. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. The Ld Cit (A) Is Erred In Confirming An Amount Of Rs. 81,75,302/- U/S 68 Of The Act. 2. The Ld Cit (A) Is Erred In Confirming The Said Amount Without Appreciating The Fact That Original Addition Made Consisted Of Cash & Cheques Deposits Pertaining To The Period As Well As The Period Earlier To The Assessment Year Which Relates. 3. The Ld Cit (A) Is Also Erred In Confirming The Said Amount Without Considering The Additional Evidence Filed At The Time Of Remand Report Proceedings 4. The Appellant Request To Delete The Addition Confirmed By The Cit (A).

For Appellant: Anil ThakrarFor Respondent: Suresh D. Gaikwad
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 68

P a g e | 1 Sanjay Vrajlal Kothari Vs. CIT(Appeals) NFAC IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH

Deepak Srichand Bathija, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2104/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Br. Baskaran & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2104/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Deepak Srichand Bathija बिधम/ Nfac, Delhi 5-B, Elegant Apartment, 3 Room No. 356, Cr Vs. Sobhani Road, Colaba, Building, New Delhi. Mumbai-400005. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaapb6001A (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri H. S. Raheja Revenue By: Shri P. D. Chogule (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 26/05/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 26/07/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 05.07.2022 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Brief Facts Are That The Assessee Had Filed Return Of Income Of Ay. 2014-15 On 30.07.2014 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.42,24,780/-. Thereafter, The Case Of The Assessee Was Taken Up For Scrutiny By Issuing Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) On 18.09.2015. The Ao During Assessment Proceedings Noted That Assessee Is Involved In The Business Of Finance & Brokerage & Derives Income From Business, Long Term Capital Gain (Ltcg) & Other Sources. The Ao Noted That Assessee Has Earned Ltcg Of Rs.32,09,789/- From Sale Of Shares & Payment Was Received From His Share Broker. & Out Of This Rs.19,23,000/- Was Earned As Ltcg From Sale Of Shares Between 12.11.2013 To 16.12.2013 Of M/S. Kailash Auto

For Appellant: Shri H. S. RahejaFor Respondent: Shri P. D. Chogule (Sr. AR)
Section 143(2)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI BR. BASKARAN AND SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM आयकर