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)

The Board of Control for Cricket in India, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cent. Cir. 35, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2851/MUM/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jan 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 2851 & 2852/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2005-06 & 2006-07) The Board Of Control For बिधम/ Dcit Central Circle-6(2) 19Th Floor, Air India Cricket In India Vs. Wankhede Stadium, „D‟ Road, Building, Nariman Point, Churchgate, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaatb0186A (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Percy Pardiwalla Revenue By: Shri A. K. Kardam (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 14/12/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/01/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Order Dated 09.01.2017 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -54, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys. 2005- 06 & 2006-07. Ita. No.2851/Mum/2017 2. The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 09.01.2017 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -54, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2005- 06. Ita Nos. 2851 & 2852/M/2017 A.Ys.2005-06 & 2006-07 3. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwallaFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Kardam (DR)
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Shri Himmatsinh P Rajput, Vadodara vs. The ITO, Ward-4(1)(3), Vadodara

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

ITA 1734/AHD/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadavassessment Year :2013-14 Shri Himmatsinh P. Rajput, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Block No.1, Jibanagar Society, Ward-4(1)(3), B/H. Panchvati Jakat Naka, Vadodara Refinery Road, Gorwa, Vadodara Pan: Abipr 5812 J अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) थ"/ (Respondent) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" य "" यथ" "" य "" य थ" थ" Assessee By : Shri Rushin Patel, Ca Revenue By : Shri V.K. Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03/01/2022 सुनवाई क" तारीख सुनवाई क" तारीख सुनवाई क" तारीख घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 07/01/2022 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश The Assessee Is In Appeal Before The Tribunal Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals-4), Vadodara [“Cit(A)” In Short] Dated 14.08.2019 Passed For Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. In The Solitary Grievance Of Appeal, The Assessee Has Pleaded That The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.17,17,000/- By Way Of An Ex-Parte Order, Without Adjudicating The Issue On Merits.

For Appellant: Shri Rushin Patel, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 250Section 69A

Jayagauri Premabhai Patel, Vadodara vs. ITO, Ward-4(1)(5), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1021/AHD/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadavassessment Year :2012-13 Smt. Jayagauri Premabhai Patel, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 27, Satyam Prima Duplex, Ward-4(1)(5), B/H. Hotel Tapi, Dashrath, Vadodara Vadodara-391740 Pan : Aeopp 6814 R अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) थ"/ (Respondent) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" य "" यथ" "" य "" य थ" थ" Assessee By : Shri Sakar Sharma, Ar Revenue By : Shri V.K. Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04/01/2022 सुनवाई क" तारीख सुनवाई क" तारीख सुनवाई क" तारीख घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/01/2022 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश The Assessee Is In Appeal Before The Tribunal Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-4, Vadodara [“Cit(A)” In Short] Dated 13.02.2018 Passed For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Assessee Has Taken Three Grounds Of Appeal. In The First Ground Of Appeal, She Has Pleaded That No Notice Was Served Upon Her Under Section 143(2) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ In Short). However, This Ground Was Not Pressed; Hence The Same Is Rejected Being Not Pressed.

For Appellant: Shri Sakar Sharma, ARFor Respondent: Shri V.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148