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)

Prachi Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-5(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1596/KOL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Mar 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm] I.T.A. No. 1596/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Prachi Enterprises Pvt. Ltd....................................…………………………...........................Appellant 91A/1, Park Street, Avani Signature, Ground Floor, Officer No. 2, Kolkata – 700 016. [Pan: Aabcp 7089 C] Vs Ito, Ward – 5(2), Kolkata....................……………………………......................................Respondent P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata – 700 069. Appearances By: Shri Manish Tiwari, Ar Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Smt. Ranu Biswas, Sr. Dr, Addl. Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 26, 2020 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 20, 2020 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) – 2, Kolkata Dated 07.06.2019 Whereby He Confirmed The Penalty Of Rs. 10,000/- Imposed By The Ao U/S 271(1)(B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Assessee In The Present Case Is A Company Which Filed Its Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 25.09.2016 Declaring A Total Income At Nil. The Said Return Was Selected For Scrutiny Assessment & A Notice U/S 143(2) Was Issued By The Ao On 03.07.2017. The Said Notice Issued By The Ao U/S 143(2) As Well As The Subsequent Notices Issued By Him U/S 142(1) On 27.07.2018 & 04.10.2018 Remained Uncomplied With By The Assessee. The Ao, Therefore, Issued Another Notice On 01.11.2018 Electronically At The Registered E-Mail Address Of The Assessee As Well As By Post Fixing The Hearing On 12.11.2018. There Was However No Compliance On The Part

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 271(1)(b)

M/S Multi Commodity Exchange Investor Protection Fund, Mumbai vs. ITO(E)-2(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 861/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Mar 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.861/Mum/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2014-15) बनधम/ M/S. Multi Commodity Ito (E)-2(1) 5Th Floor, Piramal Exchange Investor Vs. Protection Fund Chambers Lalbaug Parel, Exchange Square, Cts Mumbai-400012. No.225 Suren Road Chakala Andheri (E), Mukhed-400093. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadtm1169M (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. Assessee By: Shri Girish Dave/Tanzil R. Padvekar Revenue By: Ms. Jotilakshmi Nayak (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 12/02/2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 19/03/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 04.11.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2014- 15. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “1) The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) ("Ld. Cit(A)") Erred In Passing The Order U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Without Giving An Opportunity Of Being Heard To Your Appellant Thereby Violating The Principles Of Natural Justice. Looking To The Facts & Circumstances Of Appellant'S Case & In Law, It Is Submitted That Vide Letter Dated 09/10/2019 Your Appellant Had Requested The Ld. Cit(A) For A Short Adjournment As The Concerned Authorized Person Was Out Of India. Without Prejudice To The Above:

For Appellant: Shri Girish Dave/Tanzil RFor Respondent: Ms. Jotilakshmi Nayak (DR)
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(3)Section 2(15)Section 250