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)

Metbrass Plassim India Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 15, New Delhi

ITA 7532/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Sept 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.D. Agarwal & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year : 2014-15 M/S Versatile Datamatics (P) Ltd. Acit, Central Circle- 15, 25, Bazar Land, Bengali Market Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi 110001 Pan : Aabcv8793K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S Superior Calltech (P) Ltd., Acit, Central Circle- 15, 25, Bazar Lane, Bangali Market, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan : Aakcs2341F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2013-14 Metbrass Plassim India Ltd., Acit, Central Circle- 15, 25, Bazar Lane, Bangali Market, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan : Aadcm9501A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gautam Jain, Adv. Shri Piyush Kumar Kamal, Ca Department By : Ms. Shefali Swaroop, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 30-07-2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.09.2018 Per Bench: These Appeals Are By The Respective Assessees Challenging The Separate Orders Of The Cit(A)- Xxvi, New Delhi ( For Short “Ld. Cit(A)”) Relating To Assessment Year 2013-14. Since Both The Assessees Are Group Companies & The Impugned Assessment Had Arisen Pursuant To The Search & Seizure Operations Dated 28.3.2015 & Facts & Grounds Raised In This Appeal Are Similar, We Deem It Just & Convenient To Dispose Them Of By Way Of This Common Order.

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Shefali Swaroop, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 153A

Superior Calltech (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 15, New Delhi

ITA 7531/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Sept 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.D. Agarwal & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year : 2014-15 M/S Versatile Datamatics (P) Ltd. Acit, Central Circle- 15, 25, Bazar Land, Bengali Market Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi 110001 Pan : Aabcv8793K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S Superior Calltech (P) Ltd., Acit, Central Circle- 15, 25, Bazar Lane, Bangali Market, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan : Aakcs2341F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2013-14 Metbrass Plassim India Ltd., Acit, Central Circle- 15, 25, Bazar Lane, Bangali Market, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan : Aadcm9501A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gautam Jain, Adv. Shri Piyush Kumar Kamal, Ca Department By : Ms. Shefali Swaroop, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 30-07-2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.09.2018 Per Bench: These Appeals Are By The Respective Assessees Challenging The Separate Orders Of The Cit(A)- Xxvi, New Delhi ( For Short “Ld. Cit(A)”) Relating To Assessment Year 2013-14. Since Both The Assessees Are Group Companies & The Impugned Assessment Had Arisen Pursuant To The Search & Seizure Operations Dated 28.3.2015 & Facts & Grounds Raised In This Appeal Are Similar, We Deem It Just & Convenient To Dispose Them Of By Way Of This Common Order.

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Shefali Swaroop, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 153A

Versatile Datamicts (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 15, New Delhi

ITA 7530/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Sept 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.D. Agarwal & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year : 2014-15 M/S Versatile Datamatics (P) Ltd. Acit, Central Circle- 15, 25, Bazar Land, Bengali Market Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi 110001 Pan : Aabcv8793K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S Superior Calltech (P) Ltd., Acit, Central Circle- 15, 25, Bazar Lane, Bangali Market, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan : Aakcs2341F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2013-14 Metbrass Plassim India Ltd., Acit, Central Circle- 15, 25, Bazar Lane, Bangali Market, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan : Aadcm9501A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gautam Jain, Adv. Shri Piyush Kumar Kamal, Ca Department By : Ms. Shefali Swaroop, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 30-07-2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.09.2018 Per Bench: These Appeals Are By The Respective Assessees Challenging The Separate Orders Of The Cit(A)- Xxvi, New Delhi ( For Short “Ld. Cit(A)”) Relating To Assessment Year 2013-14. Since Both The Assessees Are Group Companies & The Impugned Assessment Had Arisen Pursuant To The Search & Seizure Operations Dated 28.3.2015 & Facts & Grounds Raised In This Appeal Are Similar, We Deem It Just & Convenient To Dispose Them Of By Way Of This Common Order.

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Shefali Swaroop, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 153A

M/S Maa Engineering, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-51, Kolkata

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

ITA 739/KOL/2016[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Sept 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Smt. Madhumita Roy, Jm] Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Maa Engineering..……………………………………………………..................................Appellant 37, B.T. Road, Sukhchar, Kolkata – 700 115 [Pan : Aaifm 7800 L] A.C.I.T, Cir 51, Kolkata.................................................................................................Respondent Manicktala Civic Centre, Block-3, 2Nd Floor, Ultadanga, Uttarapan Complex, Kolkata – 700 054. Appearances By: Shri Sunil Surana, Ar Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 12, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 14, 2018 Order Per Madhumita Roy, Jm The Instant Appeal Has Been Filed Before Us By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 11.01.2016 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) -15, Kolkata Arising Out Of The Order Dated 11.03.2013 Passed By The Acit Circle 51, Kolkata For The A.Y. 2010-11. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is This That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & In Fact In Adopting The Net Profit Rate At 8% Ignoring The Assessee’S Passed Records As Well As The Turnover Of The Business. Further That The Income Estimated By The Ld. Cit(A) At Rs. 27,32,914/- As Against The Declared Income At Rs. 8,46,472/- Is Highly Excessive & Bad In Law.

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 271(1)(b)Section 274

Jorabat Shillong Expressway Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 14(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3667/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Sept 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3667/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) बिधम/ Jorabat Shillong Expressway Ito 14(2)(1) Ltd. (Erstwhile Income Tax Vs. The Il&Fs Financial Center, Officer-10(1)(4) Mumbai Room No. 457, 4Th Floor, Plot No. C-22, G Block, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Aaykar Bhavan, Maharshi Bandra(E), Mumbai-400051. Karve Road, Marine Lines, Mumbai-400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccj3827H (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Dilip V. Lakhani (Ar) Revenue By: Shri Suman Kumar (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 20.06.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12.09.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 09.02.2016 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-22, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2011-12. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - 1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Confirming That The Interest Income Of Rs.31,13,010/- The Appellant Prays That The Interest Income Earned By The Appellant Amounting To

For Appellant: Shri Dilip V. Lakhani (AR)For Respondent: Shri Suman Kumar (DR)
Section 234B