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)

Siva Industries and Holdings Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT Corp Circle 6(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITTPA 11/CHNY/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.: 11/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Siva Industries & Holdings Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner (Siva Ventures Ltd., Merged With Siva Vs. Of Income Tax, Industries & Holdings Ltd.,) Corporate Circle 6(2), Mena Kampala Arcade, 3Rd Floor, Chennai. A Block, B Wing, 113 – 114, Sir Theyagaraya Road, T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. Pan: Aaacs 4460M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri A. Sasikumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.07.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Final Assessment Order Passed By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Corporate Circle -6(2), Chennai Dated 30.01.2015 Passed In Pursuant To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel (Drp), Chennai Dated 27.11.2014. It(Tp)A No.11/Chny/2024

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 92Section 92C

Manchaiah Shivalingaiah, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(2)(5), Bengaluru

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

ITA 944/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeymanchaiah Shivalingaiah The Income Tax Officer No. 365/Ss, 1St Main, 2Nd Cross Ward - 1(2)(5) 3Rd Phase, Manjunath Nagar Vs. Bmtc Building, 80 Ft. Road Rajajinagar, Bengaluru 560010 Koramangala Pan – Bosps6014P Bengaluru 560095 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Likith Patel, M.K., Advocate Revenue By: Shri Ganesh R. Gahle, Standing Counsel Date Of Hearing: 19.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.07.2024 O R D E R Per: Keshav Dubey, J.M. This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi / Cit(A) Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1062552904(1) Dated 13.03.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “1. On The Fact & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Upholding The Order Of The Assessing Officer, In The Manner In Which He Did. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Providing Sufficient Opportunity To The Appellant To Put Forth The Submissions Of The Appellant.

For Appellant: Shri Likith Patel, M.K., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Gahle, Standing Counsel
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 69