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)

Sri. Kanala Subramanyam, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(5), Bangalore

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

ITA 751/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeykanala Subramanyam The Income Tax Officer No. 58/1, 8Th Cross, 12Th Main Ward - 5(2)(5), Bengaluru Raghavendra Block Vs. Srinagar, Bengaluru 560050 Pan – Bryps2091H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri T. Srinivasa, Ca Revenue By: Shri Subramanian S., Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 03.07.2024 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/250/2003-24/1062689536(1) Dated 15.03.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) In Respect Of Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - 1. The Impugned Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Nfac Is Highly Unjust, Arbitrary & Contrary To Law & The Principles Of Natural Justice. 2. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Nfac Has Failed To Appreciate That The Banking Transaction Of The Appellant During F.Y. 2016-17 Were In The Normal Course Of The Appellant'S Business Activities & That The Cash Deposits To His Bank Account

For Appellant: Shri T. Srinivasa, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., JCIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

Marathi Narayana Sathisha, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(5), Bengaluru

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

ITA 709/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2017-18 Shri. Marathi Narayana Sathisha, Vs. Ito, No.98, 1St Cross, Near White Park Ward – 3(3)(5), Apartments, Kudulu Village, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 068. Pan : Bjsps 3665 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Monish Sowkar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel For Department. Date Of Hearing : 21.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.06.2024 O R D E R Per Soundararajan K: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Nfac Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’) Dated 29.11.2023, In Respect Of Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Working As A Physical Instructor In The Cambridge Public School At Bangalore. During The Demonetization Period, The Ao Found That The Assessee Had Deposited Cash Into His Bank Accounts Amounting To Rs.22,53,400/- & Therefore Issued Notices Under Section 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act For Which The Assessee Had Failed To File Reply. Thereafter, A Show Cause Notice Was Also Issued To The Assessee For Which Also Assessee Page 2 Of 5

For Appellant: Shri. Monish Sowkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

Anand Immanuel Panchikal, Bangalore vs. DCIT- Circle-6 (1) (1), Bangalore

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

ITA 347/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.Anand Immanuel Panchikal Dcit, Circle 6(1)(1) B3, South Avenue, No. 12 Ii Floor, Bmtc Building 17Th B. Main, 6Th Block Vs. Koramangala 560095 Koramangala 560095 Pan – Abqpp5573J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Zain Ahmed Khan, Ca Revenue By: Shri Subramanian S., Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 26.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 04.07.2024 O R D E R Per: Soundararajan K.,J.M. This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Challenges The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Cit(A)) Dated 29.12.2023 In Respect Of Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Ld. Assessing Officer (Ao) Rejected The Claim Of The Assessee To Pay Tax U/S. 44Ad Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) At 8% On The Ground That The Assessee Is A Commission Agent And, Therefore, As Per Sec. 44Ad(6) Of The Act He Is Not Eligible To Pay Tax U/S. 44Ad. Against The Said Order The Assessee Filed An Appeal Before The Cit(A) & Contended That The Mere Deduction Of Tds By The Payee Would Not Treat The Petitioner As Commission Agent & Therefore Prayed To Set Aside The Order. The Assessee Further Contended That No Show Cause Notice Was Issued By The Ld.

For Appellant: Shri Zain Ahmed Khan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., JCIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 44A