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. Seva Souharda Credit Co Operative Limited, Tumkur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 1 & Tps, Tumkur

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

ITA 1143/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojarim/S. Seva Souharda Co-Operative Ltd. Vs The Income Tax Officer Arjun Complex Behind Ward - 1 & Tps Beside Chakthi Bhavan Tumkur Batawadi, Tumkur 572103 Pan – Aaqas9798G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sandeep Chalapahty, Ca Revenue By: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel Date Of Hearing: 18.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.01.2023 O R D E R Per: Chandra Poojari, A.M. This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 10.12.2022 For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “1. That The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) In So Far It Is Prejudicial To The Interests Of The Appellant Is Bad & Erroneous In Law & Against The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Erred In Law & On Facts In Deciding The Appeal Ex-Parte On The Ground That The Appellant Did Not Respond To The Hearing Notices & Such Finding Is Perverse As The Appellant Has Sought Adjournment. 3. That The Learned Assessing Officer Erred In Law & On Facts In Assessing The Profit Of Rs. 2,26,049 As Income Of The Appellant

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Chalapahty, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 68Section 80P(2)(a)

S.A.Imamudeen, Kanchipuram vs. ITO Ward-2, Kanchipuram

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

ITA 596/CHNY/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Jan 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.596/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri S.A. Imamudeen, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 10B, Sengaluneerodai Street, Ward 2, Kanchipuram. Kanchipuram, Tamil Nadu 631 502. [Pan:Abhpi2997N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 11.01.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.01.2023 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) 7, Chennai Dated 07.03.2020 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That On Verification Of The Itd Application, The Assessing Officer Has Noted From Air Information That The Assessee Has Deposited Cash To The Tune Of ₹.15,08,200/- During The Financial Year 2010-11, But, The Assessee Has Not Filed Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2011-12. To Verify The Genuineness Of The Transaction

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 156Section 271(1)(b)