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)

Sunil C. Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 21(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 59/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.59/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) बिधम/ Mr. Sunil C. Shah, Ito-Wd 21(3)(2) A/402, Odessy-1 C-11, Pratyaksha Kar Vs. Bhavan, 5Th Floor, Bandra Hiranandani Garden, Powai- Mumbai-400076. Kurla Complex Bandra (E) Mumbai-400051. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abfps0623M (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ketan L. Vajani Revenue By: Shri V. Justin & Ms. Pooja Swaroop (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 29.06.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25.09.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 03.10.2013 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-22, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2009-10. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - 1. The Ld. Assessing Officer Has Erred In Disallowing The Commission Paid Of Rs.11,40,008/- & It'S Reasonableness To Various Parties On Sales & Making Charges. The Ld. A.O Has Not Appreciated The Commission Paid Is Vital For

For Appellant: Shri Ketan L. VajaniFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin & Ms. Pooja
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)

Zee Bangles, Mumbai vs. ITO 18(3)(5), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be partly allowed

ITA 494/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.494/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Zee Bangles बिधम/ Ito Ward 18(3)(5) 3Rd Floor Earnest House 148, L.K. Mkt, Zaveri Vs. Nariman Point Mumbai- Bazar, Mumbai-400002. 400021. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaafz3532C (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri V.Vidhyadhar (Sr.Dr) Assessee By: Shri Vimal Punmiya सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 27.06.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24.09.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 02.08.2016 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-29 Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The Ay. 2009- 10. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. In The Facts & Circumstances & In Law, The Impugned Assessment Order Is Patently Illegal Passed In Violation Of Provisions Of Section 143(2), Non-Compliance Of Mandate Given By Hon. Sc [259 Itr 10 Pg. & Non-Compliance Of Principle Of Natural Justice & Thus Liable To Be Quashed.

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri V.Vidhyadhar (Sr.DR)
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 234CSection 27lSection 69C