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)

Rajkamal Agnihotri, Dehradun vs. Income Tax Officer, Dehradun

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 240/DDN/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun12 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2022-23] Rajkamal Agnihotri Vs Ito Shivalik View, Lane No.3, Ward-1(1)(3) Jogiala, Ring Road, Dehradun Nathanpur, Dehradun Uttarakhand Uttarakhand -248005 Pan-Amqpa2608G Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri K. K. Juneja, Adv. Respondent By Ms. Poonam Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 10.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 12.03.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 06.11.2025 By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), Nfac, Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Nfac/2021-22/10408670 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 14.03.2024 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2022-23. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income On 28.07.2022, Declaring Total Income Of Inr 4,89,260/-. The Return Was Updated On 11.09.2023 U/S 139(8A) Of The Act, Declaring Total Income Of Inr 73,92,200/- & Paid The Taxes Alongwith The Interest Thereon. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny On The Ground That No Capital Gain Was Reported In Itr Though The Assessee Has Sold The Property Thereafter, The Assessment Was Completed U/S 143(3)/144B Of The Act Dated 14.03.2024 Wherein Income Declared In The Updated Return Filed U/S 139(8A) Of The Act Was Accepted However, Penalty Proceedings U/S 270A(1) R.W.S. 270A(8) & 270A(9)(A) Of The Act Were Initiated. The Ao Thereafter, Proceeded With Pending Penalty Proceedings & Imposed The Penalty In Terms Of The Order Dated 14.03.2024 Imposing The Penalty Of Inr 31,58,542/- U/S 270A Of The Act.

Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 19Section 250Section 270Section 270ASection 270A(1)Section 9

DCIT, Central Circle 1, Rajkot vs. Yagnik Road Highstreet LLP, Rajkot

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed:

ITA 684/RJT/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot12 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No. 511 To 513/Rjt/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष /Assessment Year: 2020-21 To 2022-23 (Hybrid Hearing) Yagnik Road Highstreet Llp Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Office No.102, Ornament Arcade, Darbargadh Chowk, Bedinaka Road, Rajkot Rajkot-360001 Income Tax, Central-1 Income Tax Office, Amruta Estate Building, Near Girnar Cinema, Mg Road, Rajkot Rajkot-360001 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacfy4924F (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं/.Ita No. 684/Rjt/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Year: 2021-22 (Hybrid Hearing) The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Yagnik Road Highstreet Llp Income Tax, Central-1 Income Tax Office, Amruta Estate Building, Near Girnar Cinema, M G Road, Rajkot Rajkot-360001 Office No.102, Ornament Arcade, Darbargadh Chowk, Bedinaka Road, Rajkot Rajkot-360001 स्थायी लेखासं./जी आइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacfy4924F (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri D.M. Rindani, Ld.Ar राजस्व की ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 12/03/2026 Order

For Appellant: Shri D.M. Rindani, Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147

Ramco Systems Ltd., Rajapalayam vs. ACIT, Corporate Circle, Madurai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly-allowed

ITTPA 33/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.: 33/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21 Ramco Systems Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner 47, Psk Nagar, Vs. Of Income Tax, Kumarasamy Raja Nagar, Corporate Circle, Rajapalayam – 626 108. Madurai Pan: Aabcr 2076B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri S. Muralidhar, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02.03.2026 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R Per George George K: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 25.07.2024 Passed U/S.143(3) R.W.S144C(13) R.W.S.144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2020-21. 2. The Assessee Is A Company Established In The Year 1997. The Assessee Is A Software Product Company Engaged In The Business Of It(Tp)A No.33/Chny/2024 :- 2 -: Development & Selling Of Four Software Products Namely Erp Software, Aviation Software, Hr Software & Logistics Software. The Assessee Sells Its Software Products In India As Well As Abroad. It Is Stated That Assessee Company Has Established 14 Subsidiaries Abroad In Various Countries For Selling Its Licensed Software Products Abroad. It Is Submitted That These Subsidiaries Are The Aes Of The Assessee & Are Essential Distributors Of Assessee’S Software Products Abroad.

For Appellant: Shri S. Muralidhar, CAFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, CIT
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 92C