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)

Mohammed Taj, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., CC - 3(1), Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1184/KOL/2024[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Nov 2024AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.1184/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Mohammed Taj……….………………………..……….………….…..……Appellant 11, Balmukund Macker Road, Kolkata – 700007. [Pan: Aaccpt0441J] Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-3(1), Kolkata.…....…………..…........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manish Tiwari, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri A. Kundu, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 12, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 20, 2024 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 28.03.2024 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-21, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed Its Return Of Income On 26.03.2022 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.38,93,560/- U/S Section 139 Of The Act. Subsequently, A Search & Seizure Operation U/S 132 Of The Act Was Conducted On 13.01.2021 In The Case Of Hospitality Group Of Cases To Which The Assessee Belongs. The Search Operation Extended To The Premises Of The Assessee At 11, Bal Mukund Mackar Road, Khaja House, Barabazar, Kolkata-700007. Following The Search Operation, The Case Of The Assessee Was Centralized With Central Circle-3(1), Kolkata & Subsequently, The Case Was Transferred To The Pr. Cit-13, Kolkata. Consequently, A Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Act Was Issued Which Was Followed By Issuing A Notice U/S 142(1)

Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 69C

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Nungambakkam, Chennai vs. Adarsh Estates Private Limited, Mylapore, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue vide

ITA 722/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.722 /Chny/2024 धििाारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assistant Commissioner Of Adarsh Estates Private Limited, Income Tax, Vs. No.189/139, Golden Enclave, Corporate Circle-1(1), Luz Church,Mylapore,Chennai-4 Nungambakkam, [Pan: Aadca5788R) Chennai आयकर अपील सं./ Co.No.52 /Chny/2024 धििाारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2013-14 Adarsh Estates Private Limited, Assistant Commissioner Of No.189/139, Golden Enclave, Luz Vs. Income Tax, Church, Mylapore, Chennai Corporate Circle-1(1), [Pan: Aadca5788R) Nungambakkam, Chennai (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Ms.Sonali Khatod, C.A. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुिवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 22.08.2024 घोर्णा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20.11.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M : This Appeal Vide Ita No.722 Is Filed Against The Order Bearing Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1059764842(1) Dated 16.01.2024 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax [Herein After “Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Center[Nfac], Delhi, For The Assessment Years

For Appellant: Ms.Sonali Khatod, C.AFor Respondent: Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69