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)

ACIT Circle-3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Watermark Capital Ltd.[Previously, Watermark Financial Consultants Ltd], Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue dismissed

ITA 800/MUM/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.800/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Acit, Circle-3(3)(2) बिधम/ M/S. Watermark Capital Room No. 628, 6Th Floor, Ltd. (Previously Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Watermark Financial Road, Mumbai-400020. Consultants Ltd.) 1010, Maker Chambers- V, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacw3474H (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Anand Kumar Tibrewal Revenue By: Shri Anil Gupta सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 27/02/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 10/04/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-08, Mumbai Dated 20.11.2019 For Ay. 2013-14. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Brought To Our Notice That The Assessee Has Not Preferred An Appeal/Cross Objection Against The Impugned Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Since It Has Got Relief On Merits In Respect Of Grounds Raised By The Revenue Against The Impugned Order Of The Ld. Cit(A). According To The Ld. Ar, Therefore, The Assessee Has Preferred An Application Under Rule 27 Of The Income Tax Tribunal Rule, 1963 Wherein It Has Raised A Legal Issue Challenging The Jurisdiction Of The Dcit Circle-3(3) To Have Issued Notice Dated 02.09.2014 U/S 143(2) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Rules”). & Thereafter Erred In Framing The Assessment U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 30.03.2016

For Appellant: Shri Anand Kumar TibrewalFor Respondent: Shri Anil Gupta
Section 115JSection 119Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148

Acpl Design Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 1(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4974/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Acpl Design Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito, J-103, Ground Floor, Ward-1(1), South Extension-1, New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 049. Pan: Aahca5958K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Manoj Kumar, Ca Revenue By : Shri Kanav Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.04.2023 Order Per C.M. Garg, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 09.05.2018 Of The Cit(A)-1, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Ld. Assessee’S Representative Submitted That The Assessee Does Not Want To Press Legal Grounds No.1, 2 & 3. Therefore, The Same Are Dismissed As ‘Not Pressed. The Remaining Effective Grounds No.4 & 5 Read As Follows:- “4. That The Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Sustaining The Addition U/S 68 Of Rs.25,73,000.00 On Account Of Unsecured Loan Made By Ao On Untenable & Illegal Grounds. Hence The Addition As Such May Be Deleted. 5. That The Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Sustaining The Addition Of Rs.6,52,362.00 On Account Of Foreign Travel Expense Made By Ao On Untenable & Illegal Grounds. Hence The Addition As Such May Be Deleted.”

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kanav Bali, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 68

Riya Sunil Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-6(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 229/MUM/2023[207-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2023

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhriya Sunil Jain Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 1114/1115, Clover Ward – 6(2)(1) Regency, Ramji Ashar Room No. 510, 5 Th Floor, Lane, Ghatkopar, Aaykar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400077 M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Bcepj4734M Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ms. Priyanshi Desai Respondent By : C.T. Mathews Date Of Hearing 23.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31.03.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): The Solitary Ground Of Appeal Of The Assesse Is Directed Against The Nfac In Sustaining The Addition Of Rs.2,45,000/- Made U/S 69A Of The Act On Account Of Cash Deposit In The Bank Account By The Assesse As Unexplained Money. 2. The Fact In Brief Is That Return Of Income Declaring Total Income Of Rs.3,20,300/- Was Filed On 31.07.2017. The Case Was Subject To Scrutiny Assessment & Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Act Was Issued On 21.09.2018. During The Course Of Assessment The A.O Noticed From The Data Collected From The Bank That Assessee Has Deposited Cash Of Rs.2,45,000/- In Bank Account Maintained With Bank Of India Ghatkopar East Branch. During The Course Of Assessment The Assessee

For Appellant: Ms. Priyanshi DesaiFor Respondent: C.T. Mathews
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250(6)Section 69A