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)

India Index Services & Products Ltd, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 14(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 6913/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6913/Mum/2017 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2012-13) बनधम/ M/S. India Index Services Acit-14(2)(2) Aaykar Bhawan, 4Th Floor & Products Ltd. Vs. Room No.432, M.K. Plot No. C-1, Block G, Road, Mumbai-400020. Exchange Plaza, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai-400051. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaci5633A (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Shri Abirama Kartikiyen (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Percy Pardiwala Sukh Sagar Syal सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 05.03.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/04/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 01.09.2017 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-22, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2012- 13. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Ld. Ao In Disallowing Rs.74,43,942/- Being Research & Administration Fee Incurred For Strategic Business Planning By Treating The Same As Capital In Nature & The Reasons Assigned For Doing So Are Wrong & Contrary To The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Provisions Of Income Tax Act, 1961 & Rules Made Thereunder. 2. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Alter, Amend And/Or Modify The Above Grounds Of Appeal On Or Before The Date Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwalaFor Respondent: Shri Abirama Kartikiyen (DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

M/S Shreeniwas Construction, Nagpur vs. ITO-Ward-1(4), Nagpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 152/NAG/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur24 Apr 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.152/Nag/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004–05 Shreeniwas Construction, 99, Nirmal Akash Apartment, Laxmi Nagar, Nagpur-440022. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Abzfs2149E बनाम / V/S. Ito, Ward–1(4), ……""यथ" / Respondent Nagpur. Assessee By : Shri V. S. Sinde, Ca Revenue By : Shri U. U. Kasar, Jt. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 29.03.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 24.04.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A)-I, Nagpur Dated 23.12.2013 For The Assessment Year 2004-05. 2 2. Briefly Stated The Relevant Facts Include That The Assessee Is A Firm & Is Engaged In The Business Of Real Estate, Construction & Developers. The Assessee Filed The Return Of Income Declaring Total Income Of Rs.55,45,297/-. The Assessment Was Completed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Act Making An Addition On Account Of Short Term Capital Gain Earned On Sale Of Plot As Discussed In Para 6 & Others Of The Assessment Order. The Assessing Officer Computed The Income Of The Assessee In Para 7 Of His Order & The Same Is Extracted Hereunder :- “7. Subject To The Discussion Mentioned In The Preceding Paras, The Total Income Of The Assessee Is Computed As Under :- Computation Of Income Income From Capital Gain As Per Return Nil Add- Short Term Capital Gain Of Sale Of Plot As Discussed 55,45,297/- In Preceding Paras Assessed Total Income (Rounded To) 55,45,297/-

For Appellant: Shri V. S. Sinde, CAFor Respondent: Shri U. U. Kasar, Jt. CIT
Section 131Section 143(2)Section 143(2)(ii)Section 143(3)Section 148

Hajaram P. Purohit, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 5(3), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby ordered to be allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 760/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos.760 & 761/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13) Shri Hajaram P. Purohit बिधम/ Dcit Central Circle-5(3) Air India Building, 19Th Prop: Rinku Steel Vs. Corporation Ground Floor, Floor, Nariman Point, Zariwala Building, 1St Mumbai-400021. Khetwadi Lane, Near, Alankar Cinema, Mumbai- 400004. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Agupp6813E (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Manoj Kumar Singh (Dr) Assessee By: None सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 02.04.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24/04/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Order Dated 1.11.2017 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -53, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys.2011-12 & 2012-13. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “Being Aggrieved By The Order Of Learned Cit (Appeals)-53. Mumbai. The Appellant Submits Herewith The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Singh (DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148