← 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)

Mr. Mayank Jayantilal Desai, Mumbai vs. CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 648/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 648/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Mayank Jayantilal Desai बिधम/ Cit(A), Nfac 20/20, Praveen Terrace, Dr. Delhi-110503. Vs. D.D Sathe Marg, Mumbai- 400004. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaapd9253A (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Ms. Bhoomika Patel सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 01/12/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/01/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 27.02.2021 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Nfac, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2010- 11. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “ 1. Natural Justice 1.1 It Is Submitted That, In The Facts & The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Appellate Order So Framed Be Held As Bad & Illegal, As:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Bhoomika Patel
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM

ITO Ward - 3(1), Kalyan vs. Bharat Valabhbhai Valiya, Dombivli

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

ITA 593/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Om Prakash Kant, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 593/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिधम/ Ito, Ward – 3(1) Bharat Valabhbhai Valiya 2Nd Floor, Rani Mansion, Prop. Of M/S. Industrial Vs. Murbad Road, Kalyan Switchgear, B-10, Gurudatta (West)-421301. Tower, Pandurangwadi, Manpada Road, Dombivli (E), 421201. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Agbpv1605R (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Ms. Bhoomika Patel सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 02/12/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/01/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 26.02.2020 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -01, Thane [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2010- 11. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A)-1, Thane Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 6,56,771/- Out Of The Total Addition Of Rs. 7,50,595/- Made On Account Of Bogus Purchases, Despite Holding That The Purchases Were Not A.Y.2010-11 Genuine & The Assessee Failed To Prove Genuineness Of The Transactions.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Bhoomika Patel
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE OM PRAKASH KANT, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM आयकर

ITO WD 3(1), Kalyan vs. Potdar Ajit Krishnaji (HUF, Mumbai

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

ITA 592/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Om Prakash Kant, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 592/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिधम/ Ito, Ward-3(1) Potdar Ajit Krishnaji (Huf) 2Nd Floor, Rani Mansion, V Krishna Steel Trading, Vs. Murbad Road, Kalyan (W) Vijay Baug, Varap Village, 421301. Murbad Road, Kalyan (W)- 421301. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaehp2434D (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sanjiv Brahme Revenue By: Ms. Bhoomika Patel सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 02/12/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/01/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 03.02.2020 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -01, Thane [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2010- 11. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “A) Grounds Of Appeal 1. The Learned Income Tai Officer Has Erred In Reopening The Assessment U/S 148. A.Y.2010-11 Without Prejudice To The Above

For Appellant: Shri Sanjiv BrahmeFor Respondent: Ms. Bhoomika Patel
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE OM PRAKASH KANT, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM आयकर

M/S. Centum Electronics Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 2(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed on the legal issue raised

ITA 946/BANG/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Centum Electronics Ltd. #44, Ground Floor, Deputy Commissioner Of Khb Industrial Area Vs. Income-Tax Yelahanka New Town Circle-2(1)(1) Bengaluru 560 106 Bengaluru Pan No : Aakcs7429L Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri S. Ramasubrammaniam, A.R. Respondent By : Shri Srinath Sadanala, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 13.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.01.2022 O R D E R Per Beena Pillai: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A) Bengaluru-2 Dated 28.2.2019 For The Assessment Year 2008-09. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee In This Appeal Are Reproduced As Follows:- That The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) In 1. So Far It Is Prejudicial To The Interests Of The Appellant Is Bad & Erroneous In Law & Against The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Law & 2. On Facts In Justifying The Action Of The Assessing Officer In Passing An Order Against M/S. Solectron Ems India Ltd Even Though The Said Entity Does Not Exist On The Date Of The Passing The Order. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Law & 3. On Facts In Upholding The Action Of The Assessing Officer In Passing An Assessment Order Against A Non-Existing Person. 4. That The Order U/S 147 Is Without Jurisdiction.

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubrammaniam, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala, D.R
Section 10BSection 147Section 40

jurisdiction and deserves to be set aside. Fact of the case before the Hon’ble Supreme Court clearly shows that the notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued in the name of amalgamating company and not the name of amalgamated company. In this case, similar notice dated