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)

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Ahmedabad vs. Shri Manishaben Virendra Thaker, Baroda

In the result, appeal preferred by the Revenue as well as the CO of the assessee, both are dismissed

ITSSA 15/AHD/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhai.T(Ss).A. No. 15/Ahd/2018 A/W. Cross Objection No. 50/Ahd/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12) िनधा"रण वष" Deputy Commissioner Of Manishaben Virendra बनाम बनाम/ बनाम बनाम Income Tax Thaker Vs. Central Circle-2(4), C/21, Ambica Duplex, Ahmedabad Inside Vrindavan Township Makarand Desai Road, Race Course Circle Baroda, Gujarat 380007 & Manishaben Virendra Deputy Commissioner Of Thaker Income Tax C/21, Ambica Duplex, Central Circle-2(4), Inside Vrindavan Ahmedabad Township Makarand Desai Road, Race Course Circle Baroda, Gujarat 380007 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Admpt0470E (Appellant/Cross Objector) .. (Respondent) Shri Sunil Maloo, A.R. Assessee By : Shri H. Phani Raju, Cit.Dr Revenue By : 25/06/2024 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 08/07/2024 O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Gandhinagar, (In Short

For Appellant: Shri H. Phani Raju, CIT.DRFor Respondent: 25/06/2024
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

Tapan Kumar Barman, Sodepur vs. ITO, Ward-50(5), Kolkata

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

ITA 85/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 85/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Tapan Kumar Barman Income Tax Officer, Ward-50(5), D-3/303, Peerless Nagar Vs Kolkata Sodepur, P.O. Panihati 24 Parganas (N) West Bengal - 700114 [Pan : Afwpb7516H] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri G. Ajay Robin Singh, Jcit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13/06/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/07/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Orderof The National Faceless Appeal Centre, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt.11/12/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Though The Assessee Has Raised As Many As Six Grounds Of Appeal But The Sole Grievance Of The Assessee Is That Since The Impugned Order Is Ex-Parte & Even The Assessee Could Not Appear Before The Ld. Assessing Officer For Bonafidereasons & No Details Could Be Filed Before The Lower Authorities & Thus Made Prayer To Restore The Matter Back To The File Of The Ld. Assessing Officer For De Novo Assessment. 3. We Have Heard Rival Contentions & Perused The Material Placed Before Us. We Note That The Assessee Is An Individual & 2

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Ajay Robin Singh, JCIT, Sr. D/R
Section 143(2)Section 250Section 69A