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)

Asha Devi, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Kolkata

In the result the appeals of both the assessee for A

ITSSA 67/KOL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T(Ss)A. No. 61 To 67/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2009-10 To 2015-16 Asha Devi Acit, Central Circle-1(1), Kolkata 141A, Masjid Bari Street Vs Kolkata - 700006 [Pan : Acqpd7046P] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Manish Tiwari, A/R Revenue By : Shri G. Hukugha Sema, Cit D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 14/06/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 27/06/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Bench : The Captioned Are A Bunch Of 7 Appeals Relating To Assessment Years, 2009-10 To 2015-16 In Respect Of Assessments Framed In The Case Of Person Other Than The Searched Person U/S 153C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’). Since The Facts For All The Assessment Years Are Identical & A Common Issue Is Involved, Hence These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By This Common Order. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of Twenty One (21) Days In Filing Of These Appeals In Time Before The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons Of Delay. After Perusing The Same, We Find That The Assessee Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause From Filing These Appeals In Time

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, A/RFor Respondent: Shri G. Hukugha Sema, CIT D/R
Section 132Section 133ASection 153C

Asha Devi, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Kolkata

In the result the appeals of both the assessee for A

ITSSA 66/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T(Ss)A. No. 61 To 67/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2009-10 To 2015-16 Asha Devi Acit, Central Circle-1(1), Kolkata 141A, Masjid Bari Street Vs Kolkata - 700006 [Pan : Acqpd7046P] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Manish Tiwari, A/R Revenue By : Shri G. Hukugha Sema, Cit D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 14/06/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 27/06/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Bench : The Captioned Are A Bunch Of 7 Appeals Relating To Assessment Years, 2009-10 To 2015-16 In Respect Of Assessments Framed In The Case Of Person Other Than The Searched Person U/S 153C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’). Since The Facts For All The Assessment Years Are Identical & A Common Issue Is Involved, Hence These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By This Common Order. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of Twenty One (21) Days In Filing Of These Appeals In Time Before The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons Of Delay. After Perusing The Same, We Find That The Assessee Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause From Filing These Appeals In Time

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, A/RFor Respondent: Shri G. Hukugha Sema, CIT D/R
Section 132Section 133ASection 153C

Asha Devi, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Kolkata

In the result the appeals of both the assessee for A

ITSSA 64/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T(Ss)A. No. 61 To 67/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2009-10 To 2015-16 Asha Devi Acit, Central Circle-1(1), Kolkata 141A, Masjid Bari Street Vs Kolkata - 700006 [Pan : Acqpd7046P] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Manish Tiwari, A/R Revenue By : Shri G. Hukugha Sema, Cit D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 14/06/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 27/06/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Bench : The Captioned Are A Bunch Of 7 Appeals Relating To Assessment Years, 2009-10 To 2015-16 In Respect Of Assessments Framed In The Case Of Person Other Than The Searched Person U/S 153C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’). Since The Facts For All The Assessment Years Are Identical & A Common Issue Is Involved, Hence These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By This Common Order. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of Twenty One (21) Days In Filing Of These Appeals In Time Before The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons Of Delay. After Perusing The Same, We Find That The Assessee Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause From Filing These Appeals In Time

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, A/RFor Respondent: Shri G. Hukugha Sema, CIT D/R
Section 132Section 133ASection 153C

Asha Devi, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Kolkata

In the result the appeals of both the assessee for A

ITSSA 63/KOL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T(Ss)A. No. 61 To 67/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2009-10 To 2015-16 Asha Devi Acit, Central Circle-1(1), Kolkata 141A, Masjid Bari Street Vs Kolkata - 700006 [Pan : Acqpd7046P] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Manish Tiwari, A/R Revenue By : Shri G. Hukugha Sema, Cit D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 14/06/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 27/06/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Bench : The Captioned Are A Bunch Of 7 Appeals Relating To Assessment Years, 2009-10 To 2015-16 In Respect Of Assessments Framed In The Case Of Person Other Than The Searched Person U/S 153C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’). Since The Facts For All The Assessment Years Are Identical & A Common Issue Is Involved, Hence These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By This Common Order. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of Twenty One (21) Days In Filing Of These Appeals In Time Before The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons Of Delay. After Perusing The Same, We Find That The Assessee Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause From Filing These Appeals In Time

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, A/RFor Respondent: Shri G. Hukugha Sema, CIT D/R
Section 132Section 133ASection 153C

Asha Devi, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Kolkata

In the result the appeals of both the assessee for A

ITSSA 62/KOL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Jun 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T(Ss)A. No. 61 To 67/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2009-10 To 2015-16 Asha Devi Acit, Central Circle-1(1), Kolkata 141A, Masjid Bari Street Vs Kolkata - 700006 [Pan : Acqpd7046P] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Manish Tiwari, A/R Revenue By : Shri G. Hukugha Sema, Cit D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 14/06/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 27/06/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Bench : The Captioned Are A Bunch Of 7 Appeals Relating To Assessment Years, 2009-10 To 2015-16 In Respect Of Assessments Framed In The Case Of Person Other Than The Searched Person U/S 153C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’). Since The Facts For All The Assessment Years Are Identical & A Common Issue Is Involved, Hence These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By This Common Order. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of Twenty One (21) Days In Filing Of These Appeals In Time Before The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons Of Delay. After Perusing The Same, We Find That The Assessee Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause From Filing These Appeals In Time

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, A/RFor Respondent: Shri G. Hukugha Sema, CIT D/R
Section 132Section 133ASection 153C

Asha Devi, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Kolkata

In the result the appeals of both the assessee for A

ITSSA 61/KOL/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T(Ss)A. No. 61 To 67/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2009-10 To 2015-16 Asha Devi Acit, Central Circle-1(1), Kolkata 141A, Masjid Bari Street Vs Kolkata - 700006 [Pan : Acqpd7046P] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Manish Tiwari, A/R Revenue By : Shri G. Hukugha Sema, Cit D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 14/06/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 27/06/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Bench : The Captioned Are A Bunch Of 7 Appeals Relating To Assessment Years, 2009-10 To 2015-16 In Respect Of Assessments Framed In The Case Of Person Other Than The Searched Person U/S 153C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’). Since The Facts For All The Assessment Years Are Identical & A Common Issue Is Involved, Hence These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By This Common Order. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of Twenty One (21) Days In Filing Of These Appeals In Time Before The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons Of Delay. After Perusing The Same, We Find That The Assessee Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause From Filing These Appeals In Time

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, A/RFor Respondent: Shri G. Hukugha Sema, CIT D/R
Section 132Section 133ASection 153C

Mvr Shippling Services Pvt Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Corporae Ward-4(1), Chennai

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

ITA 705/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.705/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Mvr Shipping Services Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 3, Jaffar Syrang Street, Parrys, Corporate Ward 4(1), Chennai 600 001. Chennai. [Pan:Aabcm4775G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N.V. Narayanan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 26.06.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.06.2023 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 10.01.2023 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Delayed By 80 Days In Filing The Appeal & Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay In Support Of An Affidavit To Which; The Ld. Dr Has Not Raised Any Serious Objection.

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Narayanan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 69A

Natarajan & Co, Thanjavur vs. ACIT Circle 2(1), Tirchy Chennai

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

ITA 675/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.675/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Natarajan & Co., Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of 10-A, Pambatti Street East Gate, Income Tax, Circle 2(1), Thanjavur 613 001. Trichy. [Pan:Aadfn3829P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri K.B. Muralidharan, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 26.06.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.06.2023 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 27.03.2023 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2017-18 On 29.10.2017 Declaring Total Income Of ₹.19,63,508/-. On Verification Of Books & Documents

For Appellant: Shri K.B. Muralidharan, CAFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148