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)

Narbod Constructions Pvt Ltd, Chennai vs. ACIT, CC-4(2), Chennai

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

ITA 926/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Sept 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 926/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Narbod Constructions Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 9, Tharapore Avenue, Harrington Vs. Income Tax, Corporate Circle 4(2), Road, Chetpet, Chennai 600 031. Nungambakkam High Road, [Pan:Aaacn1133C] Chennai 34. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Saroj Kumar Parida, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 20.07.2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 01.09.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 8, Chennai Dated 13.12.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2014-15. The Effective Grounds Raised In The Appeal Of The Assessee Relate (I) Confirmation Of Disallowance Of Personal Expenses, (Ii) Confirmation Of Disallowance Of Road Repairs & Maintenance & (Iii) Confirmation Of Disallowance Of Professional Fee Besides Challenging Levy Of Interest Under Section 234 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri Saroj Kumar Parida, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234

DCIT CC -4(1), Central Range-4, Mumbai vs. Hitesh S. Mehta, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 6026/MUM/2017[1992-93]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Aug 2020AY 1992-93

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6026/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 1992-93) Dcit, Central Circle-4(1) बिधम/ Hitesh S. Mehta Central Range-4, Mumbai. 32 Madhuli, Dr. A.B.Rd, Vs. Pr. Cit(2), Mumbai Worli, Mumbai-400018. Room No.1916, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.5190/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 1992-93) Hitesh S. Mehta बिधम/ Acit, Central Circle-4(1) 32 Madhuli, Dr. A.B.Rd, Air India Building, Nariman Vs. Worli, Mumbai-400018. Point, Mumbai-400021. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abapm4491J (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vijay Mehta / Shri Dharmesh Shah Revenue By: Dr. P. Daniel सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 31/08/2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/08/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue As Well As Assessee Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Order Dated 29.06.2017 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -52, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.1992-93. Ita. No.5190/Mum/2017 6026/M/2017 A.Y.1992-93 2. The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 29.06.2017 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -52, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.1992- 93. 3. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta / ShriFor Respondent: Dr. P. Daniel
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 234ASection 234BSection 254Section 80L

Hitesh S. Mehta, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle - 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 5190/MUM/2017[1992-93]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Aug 2020AY 1992-93

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6026/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 1992-93) Dcit, Central Circle-4(1) बिधम/ Hitesh S. Mehta Central Range-4, Mumbai. 32 Madhuli, Dr. A.B.Rd, Vs. Pr. Cit(2), Mumbai Worli, Mumbai-400018. Room No.1916, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.5190/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 1992-93) Hitesh S. Mehta बिधम/ Acit, Central Circle-4(1) 32 Madhuli, Dr. A.B.Rd, Air India Building, Nariman Vs. Worli, Mumbai-400018. Point, Mumbai-400021. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abapm4491J (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vijay Mehta / Shri Dharmesh Shah Revenue By: Dr. P. Daniel सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 31/08/2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/08/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue As Well As Assessee Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Order Dated 29.06.2017 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -52, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.1992-93. Ita. No.5190/Mum/2017 6026/M/2017 A.Y.1992-93 2. The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 29.06.2017 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -52, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.1992- 93. 3. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta / ShriFor Respondent: Dr. P. Daniel
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 234ASection 234BSection 254Section 80L