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. Amritlaxmi Trexim Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 4(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 745/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 745/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Amritlaxmi Trexim Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(3), 14C, M.D. Road Vs Kolkata 4Th Floor Kolkata - 700007 [Pan : Aakca4129P] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Manoj Kataruka, A/R Revenue By : Shri G. Hukuga Sema, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 14/03/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24/03/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar: This Is The Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 19, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Cit(A)”], Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Dated 24/01/2018 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Assessee Is A Company & Had Filed Its Return Of Income Electronically Declaring Total Income At Rs.390/-. The Company Had Issued Shares At A Premium During The Year. The Assessing Officer Selected The Case For Scrutiny & Issued Notices U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act Which Remained Unserved. Summons U/S 131 Of The Act Were Issued To The Director Of The Share Subscriber Companies For Personal Attendance. None Appeared. The Assessing Officer Drew Adverse Inference & Made An Addition U/S 68 Of The Act Of The Share Capital & Share Premium Received By The Assessee

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Kataruka, A/RFor Respondent: Shri G. Hukuga Sema, CIT, D/R
Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144(1)Section 250Section 68

P. Manickam & Co, Chennai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Non Corporate Circle 10

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 270/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.270/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 P. Manickam & Co., Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 41/21, Perambur Barracks Road, Income Tax, Pattalam, Chennai 600 012. Non Corporate Circle 10(1), Chennai 34. [Pan:Aaafp0680R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri P.G. Sadguru Das, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 15.03.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.03.2023 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 22.03.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Facts Are, In Brief, That The Assessee Company Is In The Business Of Civil Construction & Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Declaring Income Of ₹.4,63,05,250/-. The Case Was Selected For 2

For Appellant: Shri P.G. Sadguru Das, CAFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

A.C.I.T., Circle-2(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Descon Ltd., Kolkata

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

ITA 1648/KOL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 1648/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income M/S. Descon Ltd. Tax – Circle-2(1), Kolkata Vs Plot No. X -1,2,3, Block-Ep, Sector V Salt Lake City Kolkata - 700091 [Pan : Aaacd9410G] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25/01/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/03/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar: This Is The Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 16, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Cit(A)”], Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Dated 26/03/2019 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Revenue Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.56,07,000/- Made By The Ao On Account Of Rent & Connectivity Charges As Because The Assessee Follows The Mercantile Basis Of Accounting System & The Expenses Should Be Recorded As & When It Arises. 2. In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.33,82,434/- Made By The Ao On Account Of The Employees Contribution To Pf/Esi As Because It Violates The Provision Of Sec.36(1)(Va) Read With Sec 2(24)(X) Of The It Act & It Contradicts The Board'S Circular No. 22/2015 Dated 17.12.2015, Para No. 5 Where It Is Clarified That "This Circular Does Not Apply To Claim Of Deduction Relating To Employee'S Contribution To Welfare Fund Which Are Governed By Sec.36(1)(Va) Of The Act".

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. CIT
Section 131Section 143(2)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 68

Dilip Hiralal Doshi, Mumbai vs. Circle 26(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2656/MUM/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2023AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos. 2651 To 2656/Mum/2022 (A.Ys.2008-09 & 2013-14) Smt. Meena Dilip Doshi Vs. Ito, Circle 41(4)(1) (L E Ga L He Ir Of L At E Shr I Dilip Hira La L Kautilya Bhavan Dos Hi) Bandra East, 171, Jawahar Nagar, Mumbai 400051 Road No.-2, Goregaon West, Mumbai – 400062 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaapd5917B Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Bharat Shah Respondent By : Abhishek Kumar Singh Date Of Hearing 08.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 20.03.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These 6 Appeals Filed By The Assessee From Assessment Order 2008-09 To 2013-14 Are Directed Against The Different Order Of Nfac, Delhi. Since Common Issue On Identical Facts Are Involved In These Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Therefore, These Appeals Are Adjudicated Together By Taking Ita No. 2651/Mum/2022 As A Lead Case & Its Finding Will Be Applied Mutatis Mutandis Wherever Applicable To The Other Appeals. “1. Whether Assessing Officer Was Correct In Law To Reopen The Assessment U/S 148 Of The It Act, 1961 When Notice U/S 143(2) Is Not Issued As Per Our Records.

For Appellant: Bharat ShahFor Respondent: Abhishek Kumar Singh
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

Dilip Hiralal Doshi, Mumbai vs. Circle 26(1), Mumba

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2652/MUM/2022[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2023AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos. 2651 To 2656/Mum/2022 (A.Ys.2008-09 & 2013-14) Smt. Meena Dilip Doshi Vs. Ito, Circle 41(4)(1) (L E Ga L He Ir Of L At E Shr I Dilip Hira La L Kautilya Bhavan Dos Hi) Bandra East, 171, Jawahar Nagar, Mumbai 400051 Road No.-2, Goregaon West, Mumbai – 400062 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaapd5917B Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Bharat Shah Respondent By : Abhishek Kumar Singh Date Of Hearing 08.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 20.03.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These 6 Appeals Filed By The Assessee From Assessment Order 2008-09 To 2013-14 Are Directed Against The Different Order Of Nfac, Delhi. Since Common Issue On Identical Facts Are Involved In These Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Therefore, These Appeals Are Adjudicated Together By Taking Ita No. 2651/Mum/2022 As A Lead Case & Its Finding Will Be Applied Mutatis Mutandis Wherever Applicable To The Other Appeals. “1. Whether Assessing Officer Was Correct In Law To Reopen The Assessment U/S 148 Of The It Act, 1961 When Notice U/S 143(2) Is Not Issued As Per Our Records.

For Appellant: Bharat ShahFor Respondent: Abhishek Kumar Singh
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68