“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)

Tata Housing Development Company Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT- 8(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee ITA

ITA 3491/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singhm/S Tata Housing Vs. Dcit – 8(3)(1) Development Company Room No. 615, Ltd.,E Block, Voltas Aayakar Bhavan, Compound, Tb Kadam Mk Marg, Marg, Chinchpokli, Mumbai – 400020. Mumbai – 400033. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaact0191Q Appellant .. Respondent Dcit – 8(3)(1) Vs. M/S. Tata Housing Room No. 615, Aayakar Development Company Bhavan, Ltd.,E Block, Voltas Mk Marg, Compound, Tb Kadam Mumbai – 400020. Marg, Chinchpokli, Mumbai – 400033. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaact0191Q Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri.Madhur Agarwal.ARFor Respondent: Shri.Ajay Kumar. CIT DR

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(iii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT

Mega Custodial Services Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-10(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 633/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Mega Custodial Services Limited V. Dcit – Circle-10(2)(2) 301, Level-3, Ceejay House Room No. 209, 2Nd Floor Shiv Sagar Estate, F-Block Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Dr. Annie Besant Road Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan: Aaacm3508J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Navneet Chaudhary Department By : Shri Ram Krishna Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Navneet ChaudharyFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishna Kedia

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 36(1)(iii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI

M/S. Nicholas Piramal India Ltd, Mumbai vs. The ACIT Cur 7(1)

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 769/MUM/2008[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2022AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanpiramal Enterprises Ltd Vs. Acit, Circle – 7(1) (Formerly Known As Aayakar Bhavan Piramal Healthcare Ltd) Mumbai – 400020. (Before Known As Nicholas Piramal Ind) Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400013. Pan/Gir No. : Aaacn4538P Appellant .. Respondent Dcit, Circle – 7(1) Vs. Piramal Enterprises Ltd Aayakar Bhyavan (Formerly Known As Mumbai – 400 020. Piramal Healthcare Ltd) (Before Known As Nicholas Piramal Ind) Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013. Pan/Gir No. : Aaacn4538P Assessee By : Mr.Ronak Doshi & Ms.Manshi Padhiyar.Ar Revenue By : Mr.S.N.Kabra.Dr

For Appellant: Mr.Ronak Doshi &For Respondent: Mr.S.N.Kabra.DR

Section 143(3)Section 145Section 32Section 35Section 80

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN

Swastik Technopack Pvt.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle-3(2) (1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1521/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalswastik Technopack Pvt. Ltd. A 1, Pankaj Building, Symphony It Park, Near Megarugus Hall, Chandivali, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400072 Pan: Aaics9255L ...... Appellant Vs. Dcit, Circle-3(2)(1), Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Aditya Ramchandran Respondent By : Sh. B.K. Bagchi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 20/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 27/06/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M:

For Appellant: Sh. Aditya RamchandranFor Respondent: Sh. B.K. Bagchi, Sr. DR

Section 119Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 3Section 35Section 35(1)(ii)

Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) (weighted deduction @ 175% of the amount). 3. Statutory notices were issued under section 143(2) of the Act on 18.03.2016. Thereupon the appellant e-filed its revised return of income on 13.09.2016 thereby upward revising its total income ... Scheme, 2016 on an identical issue was made. For this year also assessee would have do the same but a notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 18.03.2016. This notice issued made the assessee ineligible to go for IDS Scheme, 2016 for this year also. Nevertheless

Morgan Stanley Advantage Services P Ltd., Mumbai vs. CIT (Apeals), Nationa Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1083/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalmorgan Stanley Advantage Services Pvt. Ltd. Athena Building No.5, Sector-30, Mindspace, Goregaon (West), Mumbai-400090 Pan: Aaeca3400B ...... Appellant Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeals Centre, Delhi. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Sunil M. Lala Respondent By : Sh. Amol B. Kirtane Date Of Hearing : 20/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 27/06/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeals Centre (Nfac), Delhi. [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Cit(A)’] Vide Order Dated 11.12.2018 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Ground 1: Disallowance Of Expenditure Claimed Towards Employee Stock Option Scheme (Esop) Under Section 37(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Act) Amounting To Rs 1,84,75,816. In This Regard, The Learned Cit(A)/ Learned Assessing Officer Has, On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Erred On The Following Grounds:

For Appellant: Sh. Sunil M. LalaFor Respondent: Sh. Amol B. Kirtane

Section 143(2)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 30Section 37(1)

declaring total income of Rs. 2,38,13,60,120/-.The case was selected for scrutiny and notices were issued under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’). In response 3 to the aforesaid notices, Authorized Representative (AR) of the assessee furnished the details

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 17(2)), Mumbai vs. Navjbai Ratan Tata Trust, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed, while appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1315/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(5)Section 13(1)(d)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 164(2)

ITA No. 1300/Mum/2018 Assessment year: 2010-11 Page 1 of 10 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI B BENCH

Navjbai Ratan Tata Trust, Mumbai vs. Additional Director of Income Tax (Exemptions) Range-II(Now Assessed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 17(2)), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed, while appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1300/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(5)Section 13(1)(d)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 164(2)

ITA No. 1300/Mum/2018 Assessment year: 2010-11 Page 1 of 10 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI B BENCH

Axis Cades Aerospace Infrastructure Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Bangalore-1, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 777/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Sheetal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Karanth, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(2)Section 263Section 36(1)(vii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESEIDENT AND SHRI PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT