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)

DCIT 4(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Khanna Rayon Industries P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 3233/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3233/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) बिधम/ Dcit, Cir 4(2)(1) M/S. Khanna Rayon Room No.642, 6Th Floor, Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. 1St Floor, Silk House, Silk Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Bazar, J.S.S. Road, Dhobi Talao, Mumbai-400002. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aajcs3407M (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Sandeep Raj (Dr) Assessee By: Shri K. Gopal & Ms. Neha Paranjpe (Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 25/03/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/04/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 03.01.2017 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -09 Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2012- 13. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - "1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Allowing Relief To The Assessee Of Rs. 17,00,00,000/- On Account Of Sale Of Tdr, Holding It As A Capital Receipt Not Subject To Tax, Without Appreciating The Fact That The Assessee Itself Submitted That Out Of 86,000 Sq. Ft. Of Saleable Area, 65,000 Sq. Ft. Was Constructed & A.Y.2012-13 The Balance Of 21, 000 Sq. Ft. Of Saleable Area Which Was Kept For Themselves Have Been Converted As Stock-In-Trade In A. Y. 1995-96 & Was Reflected In The Books At The Notional Market Value".

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal & Ms. Neha ParanjpeFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Raj (DR)
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14A

Income Tax Officer-19(1)(3), Mumbai vs. Ganpat Metal Industries, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 5125/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Apr 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 5125/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Ito-19(1)(3) बिधम/ Ganpat Metal Industries Room No.220, 2Nd Floor, Shop No.1 Narayan Niwas, Vs. 2Nd Khetwadi Lane Near Matru Mandir Building, Tardeo Road, Mumbai- Alankar Cinema, Mumbai- 400007. 400004. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aagfg1194B (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Ms. Smita Verma (Sr. Ar) Assessee By: None सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 25/02/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/04/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 03.05.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-07, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2009- 10. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Justified In Restricting The Addition @ 12.5% As Against @ 19.5% Made By The Ao On Bogus Purchases Despite The Fact That The Addition Was Made On Basis Of Credible Information Received From Dgit(Inv.) Based On Information Supplied From Sales Tax Authorities.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Smita Verma (Sr. AR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

Gul Manoharlal Makhijani, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward - 2(1), Kalyan

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby dismissed

ITA 3208/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 3208/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 3209/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Gul Manoharlal Makhijani बिधम/ Commissioner Of Income 6, Red Rose Society, Opp, Tax-3, Vs. Room No.30, A- Wing, 6Th Chopra Court, Ulhasnagar, Maharashtra-421003. Floor, Ashar I. T. Park, Wagle Indl, Estate, Thane- 400064. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aazpm5806H (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri T. S. Khalsa (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 18/02/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/04/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Order Dated 22.02.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Thane [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys. 2009- 10 & 2010-11. Ita. No.3208/M/2019

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri T. S. Khalsa (DR)
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148