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)

ACIT 10(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Nikmo Entertainment Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby ordered to be dismissed

ITA 4944/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4944/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Acit 10(3)(1) बिधम/ Nikmo Entertainment Ltd. R.No. 212 Aayakar Bhavan, Now Known As Pvr Ltd. Vs. 10Th Floor, 215 Atrium M.K. Rd Andheri Kurla Rd. Mumbai Mumbai Pin:400020 Pin:400059 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacp4526D (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav ( Dr) Assessee By: Shri None सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 07.08.2017 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22.09.2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 16.05.2016, Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-21 Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The Ay.2012- 13. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds:- “Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Holding Entertainment Duty Collected By The Assessee As Capital Receipt Relying On The Decision Of Hon’Ble Bombay High Court In The Case Of Cit Vs. Chaphalkar Brothers Without Appreciating The Fact That The

For Appellant: Shri NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav ( DR)
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

DCIT, Chennai vs. Alacrity Housing Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 198/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Sept 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I T.A. No. 198/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Alacrity Housing Ltd., Income Tax, Vs. 15, Thirumalai Road, T. Nagar, Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai 600 017. Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aaaca3176G] (Appellant) (Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Sailendra Mamidi, Pcit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. Sivaraman, Advocate सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 06.09.2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.09.2017 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 6, Chennai Dated 04.10.2016 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2012-13. The Only Effective Ground Raised In The Appeal Of The Revenue Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Made Under Section 41(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] Without Appreciating The Fact That The Assessee Has Not Established The Existence Of Huge Liabilities With Convincing Evidence Before The Assessing Officer, Since The Assessee Has Stopped Its Business Activity Way Back In 2

For Appellant: Shri Sailendra Mamidi, PCITFor Respondent: Shri R. Sivaraman, Advocate
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 41(1)