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)

Jelly Commotrade Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-7(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 196/KOL/2017[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Mar 2019AY 2009-2010

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi) Assessment Year: 2009-10 Jelly Commotrade Pvt. Ltd…..…………….............................…..……………….…...……..…….............Appellant C/O. Rsvpc & Company 41A, A.J.C. Bose Road Suite No. 613 Kolkata – 700 017 [Pan : Aaccj 0218 Q] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(1), Kolkata……........................................……………...…...........Respondent Appearances By: Shri V.K. Jain, A/R, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri A.K. Nayak, Cit, Sr. D/R. Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 4Th, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 15Th , 2019 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Kolkata, (Ld. Cit(A)) Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, (The ‘Act’), Dt. 29/11/2016, For The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Assessee Is A Private Limited Company & Is In The Business Of Investments. It Filed Its Original Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2009-10 On 18/07/2009, Declaring Total Income Of Rs.1,370/-. The Assessing Officer Processed The Return U/S 143(3) Of The Act & Thereafter The Assessment Was Re-Opened & An Order U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Act, Was Passed On 24/11/2011, Assessing The Total Income At Rs.63,670/-. This Order Was Set Aside By The Ld. Cit-2, Kolkata, Vide Order U/S 263 Of The Act, Dt. 25/03/2014 & The Assessing Officer Was Directed To Pass A Fresh Assessment Order For Making Necessary Enquiries & Verifications As Mandated By The Ld. Cit-2, Kolkata.

Section 127Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250Section 263Section 68

M/S. Jai Hanuman Enterprises (Firm), Angul vs. ITO, Angul Ward, Angul

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 233/CTK/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack12 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Gargआयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.233/Ctk/2017 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013) M/S Jai Hanuman Vs. Ito, Angul Ward, Angul, Enterprises(Firm), Odisha At-Sanjeebani Market, Angul-759122 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaefj 7680 F (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.R.Mohanty & Shri S.K.Dehuri, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Dutta, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 08/03/2019 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 12/03/2019 आदेश / O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Bhubaneswar, Dated 28.02.2017 Passed In First Appeal No.0024/2015-16 For The Assessment Year 2012-2013. 2. Ld. Assessee‟S Representative (Ar) Submitted That The Assessee Does Not Want To Press The Ground Nos.1 & 2, Accordingly, The Same Are Dismissed As Not Pressed. Grounds No.5 & 6 Are Of General In Nature, Therefore, The Same Are Not Being Adjudicated. 3. Now, The Remaining Effective Grounds Are Ground No.3 & 4, Which Read As Under :- “3. That, The Learned C.I.T (Appeals) Has Misconstrued/ Misappreciated The Facts & His Order Dated 28Th February

For Appellant: Shri P.R.Mohanty &For Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR
Section 142(1)