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)

Seema Gulzari Gulati, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-25(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 3024/MUM/2022[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2023AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 3024/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Seema Gulzari Gulati बिधम/ Acit-25(3) Ramkunj Yashwant Colony, C-10, 11, 12 & 13, Vs. Aurangabad Road, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Ahmednagar-414001. Bandra (E), Mumbai- 400051. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aarpg9005A (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Abhishek Jhunjhunwala Revenue By: Shri Aditya M. Rai (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 19/01/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/01/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 10.11.2022 For Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee (Legal Heir) Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.50 Lakhs Made By The Ao Disallowing The Municipal Taxes Paid By The Assessee. 3. Brief Facts As Noted By The Ao Is That The Assessee An Individual Did Not File Any Return Of Income In This Relevant Assessment Year. Later, He Received An Information From The Nms Portal Of The Itd System That During The Relevant Ay 2010-11, The Assessee Had Received Rental Income & Interest Income & Since The Assessee Did Not File Any Return Of Income, The Ao Reopened The Assessment For Ay 2010- 11 By Issuing Notice U/S 148 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek JhunjhunwalaFor Respondent: Shri Aditya M. Rai (Sr. AR)
Section 143(2)Section 148

Jainsons Estates Private Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Range 3(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2261/MUM/2022[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2023AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2261/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 1996-97) Jainsons Estate Pvt Ltd. बिधम/ Ito Range-3(2)(1) 1409 Maker Chambers, V Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Jamnalal Bajaj Marg, Mumbai-400020. Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacj1047R (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mayur Makadia Revenue By: Shri Shambhu Yadav सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 06/12/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/01/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Company Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 15.07.2022 For Assessment Year 1996-97. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Action Of The Ao Disallowing The Claim Of Depreciation Amounting To Rs.10,00,000/- On The Leased Assets (193 Gas Cylinders). Even Though Assessee Has Raised Eight (8) Grounds Of Appeal. Ground No. 1 To 6 Are Against The Action Of Ao Disallowing Depreciation Claimed By The Assessee On Gas Cylinder Leased To A Semi Government Company.

For Appellant: Shri Mayur MakadiaFor Respondent: Shri Shambhu Yadav
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

Gurubilli Venkata Durga Naga Prasad Rao, Kakinada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Kakinada

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 264/VIZ/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.264/Viz/2021 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Gurubilli Venkata Durga Naga Vs. Income Tax Officer Prasad Rao Ward-1 D.No.70-2-181/4 Kakinada Guntamukkalavari Street Ramanaya Peta, Kakinada [Pan : Bfbpg6505B] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri On Hari Prasad Rao, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 01.12.2022 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31.01.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2021- 22/1036569377(1) Dated 26.10.2021 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual, Deriving Income From Salary, Income From Other Sources Apart From Agricultural Income, Filed His Return Of Income For A.Y.2017-18 On 25.11.2017

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri ON Hari Prasad Rao, DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

Tajinder Singh Kataria, Chennai vs. ITO, Non -Corp. Ward -1 (7), Chennai

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

ITA 949/CHNY/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jan 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.949/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Tajinder Singh Kataria, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 12/14, Muthuram Street, Mylapore, Non Corporate Ward 1(7), Chennai 600 004. Chennai. [Pan:Adfpt9937R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 12.01.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.01.2023 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 14.09.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed The Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2017-18 On 29.07.2017 Admitting Total Income Of ₹.2,65,790/-. The Case Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny Under Cass For The Reason Of Large Value Of Imports Shown In The Export Import

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)