Section 142(2) of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.268

Section 142(2) falls under section 142 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which corresponds to section 268 (Inquiry before assessment) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 268 of the 2025 Act

Correspondence checked against the ICAI tabular mapping of the two Acts and the BharatTax.co section commentary.

The decision most relied on for Section 142(2) is Tata Industries Ltd. v. ITO (181 TTJ 600), cited in 29 of the 83 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 142(2)

Tata Industries Ltd. v. ITO
181 TTJ 600 · 2016 · ITAT
29
citing judgments

Disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the exempt income earned by the assessee. Even if interest expenditure is considered, it cannot be solely attributed to earning exempt dividend income as investors also consider potential capital gains.

CIT v. K. S. Venkatksubbiah Reddiar
221 ITR 18 · High Court
27
citing judgments

An activity is considered business if it involves a continuous course of activity and is carried on with a profit motive.

Lok Housing & Construction Ltd. v. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax
27 Taxmann.com 15 · 2012 · ITAT
27
citing judgments

A revised return filed beyond the period of limitation under section 139(5) can still be considered valid if it rectifies an omission, such as a discrepancy in turnover due to market price changes.

CIT v. Sukhini P. Modi
367 ITR 682 · 2014 · High Court
21
citing judgments

A notice issued under Section 143(2) is a jurisdictional notice, and the absence of such a notice renders the assessment order invalid. Failure to issue a valid notice under Section 143(2) cannot be cured by subsequent actions or findings.

Rekha Rani v. DCIT
154 ITD 617 · 2015 · ITAT
19
citing judgments

Penalty under section 271(1)(b) cannot be imposed for each and every notice issued under section 143(2) that remains uncomplied with; it should be restricted to the first default only.

Golden Insulation & Engg. Ltd. v. CIT
305 ITR 427 · High Court
11
citing judgments

A change in the method of accounting cannot be a valid reason for filing a revised return of income under Section 139(5) of the Income-tax Act.

HC) Asianet Satellite Communications Ltd.. (v) DCIT v. Lab India Instruments (P.) Ltd.
93 ITD 120 · 2005 · ITAT
10
citing judgments
Balram Kumar Mahendra v. ITO
21 Taxmann.com 222 · 2012 · High Court
6
citing judgments
Napar Drugs (P) Ltd. v. DCIT
98 ITD 285 · ITAT
5
citing judgments
Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax: 2006 285 ITR 112 (Delhi); (b) ACIT Range 10(1) v. Citicorp Finance India Limited
300 ITR 398 · Reported
3
citing judgments

Judgments on Section 142(2)