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)

M/S. Angel Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Kol, Kolkata

ITA 405/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 405/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Angel Infrabuild Private Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Limited Vs Kolkata 14, 3Rd Floor, Netajee Subhash Road Dalhousie Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aajca7353G] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sunil Surana, C.A. Revenue By : Shri Vijay Kumar, Addl. Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08/07/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/07/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 28/03/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2012-13, On The Following Grounds:- “1. For That The Assessment Order Passed By Ld. Ao & Confirmed By Ld. Cit (A) Is Arbitrary, Illegal & Bad In Law. 2. For That The Assessment Order Being Served After 31.03.2015 Is Barred By Limitation For That The Ld. Cit (A) Erred In Confirming The Action Of Ld. Ao In Assessing The Share Capital & Premium Of 1,51,00,000/- As Unexplained Cash Credit Merely For The Reason Of Non- Appearance Of The Share Applicants Whereas Otherwise There Were Sufficient Evidences On Records In Support Of The Identity, Capacity Of The Share Applicants & Genuineness Of The Transactions & All The Share

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar, Addl. CIT, Sr. D/R
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

K.Kavitha, Erode vs. ITO, Ward 1(2), Erode

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

ITA 764/CHNY/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 764/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 K. Kavitha, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, H-54, Periyar Nagar, 3Rd Main Road, Ward -1(2), Erode 638 001, Tamil Nadu. Erode. [Pan:Aoppk1042R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate [Erode] ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 25.07.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.07.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi Dated 29.04.2023 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed The Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2014-15 On 13.05.2015 Admitting An Income Of ₹.2,28,770/- & The Same Was Processed Under Section 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short]. Subsequently, The Case Has 2

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate [Erode]For Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 44A

Arunachala Nadar Paulrajan Selvarajan, Sivakasi vs. DCIT, Croporate Circle, Madurai

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

ITA 725/CHNY/2023[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jul 2023AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.725/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2004-05 Arunachala Nadar Paulrajan Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Selvarajan, New No. 59, Chairman A. Income Tax, Shanmugam Road, Sivakasi 626 123, Corporate Circle, Tamil Nadu. Madurai. [Pan:Ajgps0996L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri V. Rajasekaran, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 25.07.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.07.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, Chennai, Dated 03.02.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2004-05. 2. The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Filed With A Delay Of 431 Days In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay In Support Of An Affidavit Mentioning The Reasons For Delay In Filing The Appeal. By Referring To The Above Affidavit, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Has Submitted That There Is Reasonable Cause

For Appellant: Shri V. Rajasekaran, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 69