Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.270

Section 143(2) falls under section 143 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which corresponds to section 270 (Assessment) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 270 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 143(2) is National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT (229 ITR 383), cited in 5,834 of the 13,613 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

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. 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.

Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT
193 ITR 321 · 1992 · Supreme Court
1,695
citing judgments

The principle of consistency applies in tax matters, meaning a fundamental aspect found to be true in one assessment year should not be changed in a subsequent year if the order was not challenged.

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.

Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT
402 ITR 640 · 2018 · Supreme Court
1,596
citing judgments

Disallowance under Section 14A is not automatic and requires the Assessing Officer to record satisfaction before applying Rule 8D. Only investments yielding exempt income are considered for disallowance, irrespective of their strategic nature.

Cheminvest Ltd. v. CIT
378 ITR 33 · 2015 · High Court
1,569
citing judgments

A disallowance under Section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for expenditure incurred in relation to exempt income cannot be made if the assessee has not earned any exempt income during the relevant previous year.

CIT v. Vatika Township Pvt. Ltd.
367 ITR 466 · 2014 · Supreme Court
1,558
citing judgments

Taxing statutes are presumed to operate prospectively unless a clear contrary intention for retrospective application is evident. The law applicable for determining tax liability is that which stands on the first day of the assessment year, following the principle that law looks forward, not backward (lex prospicit non respicit).

CIT v. Simit P. Sheth
356 ITR 451 · 2013 · High Court
1,465
citing judgments

Additions for alleged bogus purchases should be restricted to the profit element, not the entire turnover. The profit element is often estimated at 12.5% of the purported bogus purchases.

Judgments on Section 143(2)

Calcutta Fruits Company, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 43(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2556/KOL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Jul 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri George Mathancalcutta Fruits Company, Vs Ito Ward-43(1), Kolkata 10A, Madan Mohan Street, Burrabazar, Kolkata Pan No. :Aabfc 9447 J (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Manoj Kataruka, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Mrinmay Basak, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 07/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 07/07/2025 आदेश / O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 26.07.2024, Passed By The Addl./Jcit(A)-2, Ahmedabad, For The Assessment Year 2017-2018. 2. Shri Manoj Kataruka, Ld.Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee & Shri Mrinmay Basak, Ld. Sr. Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. 3. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Assessee Has Filed Additional Grounds On 08.05.2025, Which Reads As Under :- Additional Ground Of Appeal: - 1) That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Action Of The Ao To Frame Assessment On Basis Of An Invalid Notice Issued U/S 143(2) Renders The Assessment Framed As Invalid & Bad In Law. The Aforesaid Ground Of Appeal Raised Is Purely Legal Issue Which Goes To The Root Of The Matter & The Same Does Not Require Any Fresh Investigation Into The Fact, Facts Already Being On Record. Further, The Omission To Raise The Additional Grounds Is Neither Wilful Nor Intentional. In View Of The Above, The Aforesaid Additional Grounds May Kindly Be Admitted & Adjudicated While Hearing The Appeal Filed By The Assessee. An Opportunity Of Being Heard Is Prayed For.

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Kataruka, ARFor Respondent: Shri Mrinmay Basak, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 148

Aashiyana Infrastructure Development Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-1(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assesse is allowed

ITA 8472/DEL/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jul 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.8472/ िद"ी /2019 (िन.व. 2008-09) Aashiyana Infrastructure Development P. Ltd., 22/2B Tilak Nagar, New Delhi 110018 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aafca-2236-A बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), R.No 366, Dr. S.P Mukherjee, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Civic Centre, Minto Road, New Delhi 110002 Assessee By : Shri Salil Kapoor, Ms. Ananya Kapoor, S/Shri Shivam Yadav & Tarun Chanana, Advocates Department By: Shri Ashish Tripathi, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 24/04/2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 04/07/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-32, New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Cit(A)') Dated 27.08.2019, For Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case As Emanating From Records Are: The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For Ay 2008-09 Declaring Loss Of Rs.10,97,461/-. The Return Of Income Was Accepted U/S. 143(1) Of The Act. Thereafter, A Survey Operation Was Carried Out In The Case Of Shreeji Group Of Cases, The Assessee Is One Of The Group Companies. During

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, Ms. Ananya KapoorFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148