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)

Link Towers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. The PCIT, Kolkata-2, Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals are dismissed

ITA 680/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Aug 2016AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri P.M.Jagtap, Am & Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Jm Assessment Year:2011-12 Link Towers Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, C/O Rsvpc &Company, 41A, Kolkata-2, A.J.C.Bose Road, Suite No.613, Aayakarbhawan, Kolkata-700014. P-7, Chowringhee Square, Rep. By Shri Lokesh Kr.Mishra, Ar Kolkata – 700 069. Pan : Aabcl 8565 B Rep. By Shri Niraj Kumar, Cit Assessment Year:2009-10 Twinst Tradelink (P)Ltd., Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax, C/O Rsvpc &Company, 41A, Kolkata-I, A.J.C.Bose Road, Suite No.613, Aayakarbhawan, Kolkata-700014. P-7, Chowringhee Square, Rep. By Shri Lokesh Kr.Mishra, Ar Kolkata – 700 069. Pan : Aadct 1286 D Rep. By Shri Niraj Kumar, Cit Assessment Year:2011-12 M/S.Adhishwar Vinimay Pvt.Ltd., Vs. I.T.O., Ward-4(3), Kolkata Rajesh Mohan & Associates, Unit Aayakarbhawan, No.18, 5Th Floor, Bagati House, 34, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Ganesh Chandra Avenue, Kolkata- Kolkata – 700 069. 700013. Rep. By None Rep. By Shri Niraj Kumar, Cit Pan : Aajca 2358 P Assessment Year:2011-12 M/S.Integral Barter Pvt. Ltd., Vs. I.T.O., Ward-6(4), Kolkata Rajesh Mohan & Associates, Unit Aayakarbhawan, No.18, 5Th Floor, Bagati House, 34, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Ganesh Chandra Avenue, Kolkata- Kolkata – 700 069. 700013. Rep. By None Rep. By Shri Niraj Kumar, Cit Pan : Aacci 5359 M Assessment Year:2011-12 M/S.Coral Commo Sales Pvt. Ltd., Vs. I.T.O., Ward-6(1), Kolkata Rajesh Mohan & Associates, Unit Aayakarbhawan, No.18, 5Th Floor, Bagati House, 34, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Ganesh Chandra Avenue, Kolkata- Kolkata – 700 069. 700013. Rep. By None Rep. By Shri Niraj Kumar, Cit

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

Shah Pratap Industries P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 44, Mumbai

In the result, all above seven appeals filed the Assessee are allowed

ITA 4643/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Aug 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: S/Shri Rajendra & C.N. Prasadआयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं/.Ita.S./4643To4649/Mum/2014 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years: 2005-06 To 2011-2012 वष" M/S. Shah Pratap Industries Pvt. Dcit, Cc-44 Room No.656, 6Th Floor, Ltd. 16, Gundecha Chambers, Aayakar Bhavan, Mk Road Vs. Nm Road, Fort Mumbai-20. Mumbai-400 023. Pan:Aaacs5494D (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By:- Shri Sanjeev Kashyap-Dr Assessee By: Ms. Nidhi Patel सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 26.07.2016 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 03.08.2016 आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम, 1961 अिधिनयम क" क" धारा क" क" धारा धारा धारा केकेकेके अ"तग"त अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आदेश ( 1 ) 254 Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Per Rajendra, Am - अनुसार Challenging The Order,Dtd.13.05.14,Of The Cit(A)-38,Mumbai, The Assessee Has Filed Appeals For The Above Mentioned Seven Ay.S.As The Issue Involved In All The Appeals Are Common,So We Are Disposing Them Off By A Consolidated Order. Effective Goa For All The Years Is Upholding The Levy Of Penalty,Imposed By The Ao,U/S.271(1)(B) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Ms. Nidhi PatelFor Respondent: - Shri Sanjeev Kashyap-DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(b)