← All Phrases

“Section 142(1)”

Section References (mined)Section 142Section 142(1)15,051 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 142(1) is Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji (167 ITR 471), cited in 3,926 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 142(1)

Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji
167 ITR 471 · 1987 · Supreme Court
3,926
citing judgments

Delay in filing appeals, when supported by sufficient or justifiable cause, should be condoned with a liberal approach to ensure substantial justice. This principle prioritizes the cause of justice over mere technicalities.

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. Multiplan India Ltd.
38 ITD 320 · 1991 · ITAT
2,267
citing judgments

An appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal can be dismissed for non-prosecution or treated as unadmitted when the appellant fails to appear, cooperate, or show diligence, in accordance with Rule 19(2) of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules. The law aids the vigilant, not those who sleep on their rights.

Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar v. CWT
223 ITR 480 · 1997 · High Court
2,040
citing judgments

A court or tribunal is not bound to answer a reference or adjudicate an appeal on its merits if the party at whose instance the proceeding is made fails to appear at the hearing or take necessary steps for its proper conduct.

Sumati Dayal v. CIT
214 ITR 801 · 1995 · Supreme Court
1,967
citing judgments

The Revenue is entitled to look behind the apparent form of a transaction to discover its true nature, applying the test of human probabilities and surrounding circumstances. If transactions defy logic or are unnatural, they can be treated as bogus, even if supported by some documentation, especially in cases of cash credits or unexplained investments.

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.

CIT v. B.N. Bhattacharya & Another
118 ITR 461 · 1997 · Supreme Court
1,656
citing judgments

Appealing a tax assessment requires more than just filing the appeal; it involves actively pursuing it. The assessee must effectively engage with the appellate process.

CIT v. Durga Prasad More
82 ITR 540 · 1971 · Supreme Court
1,579
citing judgments

Tax authorities must judge evidence using the test of human probabilities and consider the apparent as real until there are reasons to believe it is not. They can rely on circumstantial evidence and the preponderance of probabilities to determine the genuineness of transactions.

Judgments citing Section 142(1)

Vijay Singh, Salarpur vs. ITO, Ward 1(5), Alwar

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

ITA 393/JPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, CA (Thru:VC)For Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR
Section 133(6)Section 147Section 234BSection 69ASection 80C

आयकरअपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुरन्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh]U;kf

Gmm Pfaulder Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Pr.CIT, Ahmedabad-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 839/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.839/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2020-21 Gmm Pfaulder Ltd. The Pr.Cit बनाम/ 3Rd Floor, B-Jadav Chambers Ahmedabad-1 V/S. Navrangpura H.O. Ahmedabad – 380 015 Ashram Road Ahmedabad – 380 009 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aabcg 0563 A (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate Revenue By : Shri Sher Singh, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28 /10/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Siddhartha Nautiyal, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Ahmedabad-1 [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ld. Pr. Cit” For Short] Dated 07/03/2025 Passed In Exercise Of His Revisionary Jurisdiction Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act" For Short] For Assessment Year (Ay) 2020- 21. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: Gmm Pfaulder Ltd. Vs. Pcit Asst. Year : 2020-21 2

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT-DR
Section 135Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 32Section 80G

paper book wherein the Assessing GMM Pfaulder Ltd. vs. PCIT Asst. Year : 2020-21 6 Officer’s queries under sections 142(1) and 143(2) of the Act, as well as the assessee’s replies, were placed on record. It was pointed out that the Assessing Officer had specifically called

Kamalpur Jotekanuragarh S K U S Limited, Paschim Medinipur vs. ACIT, Circle 38, Midnapur

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

ITA 382/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 270ASection 271FSection 272A(1)Section 80ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

into its bank account during the period of demonetisation from 09/11/2016 to 30/12/2016. The Assessing Officer (“the Ld. AO”) issued a notice under section 142(1) of the Act and also required the assessee to furnish various details. After considering the response of the assessee, he treated the deposits

Ritu Patwari, Kolkata vs. DCIT, CC 4(4), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed on legal issue

ITA 288/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Oct 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Accountant Member), Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey (Judicial Member)

Section 10(38)Section 127Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 6Section 68

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH KOLKATA Before Shri Rajesh

Mingma Sherpa, Gangtok vs. ITO, Ward 3(1), Gangtok

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

ITA 1442/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Oct 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarmamingma Sherpa Vs Ito, Ward-3(1), Gangtok Above Of Ind Selep Tanki, East Sikkim, Gangtok-737101. Pan No. : Dtups1375C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Apurba Saha, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Praveen Kishore, Cit- Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 04/09/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/10/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm : This Appeal By The Assessee Arises Against The Order Dated 28.03.2024 Of The Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’). 2. In This Case, The Assessee Did Not File The Return Of Income For The Assessment Year Under Consideration, I.E., A.Y. 2017–18. During The Year Under Consideration, The Assessee Had Deposited Cash Amounting To ₹10,15,14,300 In A Bank Account Maintained With The State Bank Of India, Gangtok Branch. Accordingly, Proceedings Under Section 147 Of The Act Were Initiated By Issuing Notice Under Section 148 Of The Act After Recording Reasons & Obtaining Necessary Approval From The Competent Authority. Subsequent Notice Under Section 142(1) Of The Act Was Also Issued. However, The Assessee Did Not Comply. Consequently, The Assessing Officer Completed The Assessment By Making An 2 Mingma Sherpa Addition Of ₹10,15,14,300 Under Section 69A Of The Act & Taxed The Same Under Section 115Bbe Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Apurba Saha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Kishore, CIT- DR
Section 10Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

issuing notice under Section 148 of the Act after recording reasons and obtaining necessary approval from the competent authority. Subsequent notice under Section 142(1) of the Act was also issued. However, the assessee did not comply. Consequently, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment by making an 2 Mingma Sherpa

Sandeep Poddar, Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 50(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1218/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Oct 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘D’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT

Late Sitthagounder Rasu, Repl by Legal Heir R. Kumaresan, Bhavani vs. ITO, Ward-1(4), Erode

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

ITA 2311/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2311/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Late Sitthagounder Rasu By L/R. R. Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Kumaresan, 693, Kuthiraikalmedu, Ward 1(4), Kadappanallur Post, Bhavani, Erode. Tamil Nadu 638 311. [Pan:Bdrps0224H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Lakshmi Venkataraman, F.C.A. (Virtual) ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri C.P. Solomon, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 23.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.10.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30.07.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. In The Grounds Of Appeal, Besides Challenging The Assessment Made On A Deceased Person Is Bad In Law & Not Legally Sustainable On 2

For Appellant: Shri Lakshmi Venkataraman, F.C.AFor Respondent: Shri C.P. Solomon, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

note that the notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 15.08.2018 and served on the assessee. Notice under section 142(1) of the Act was also issued on the assessee calling for details. It is an admitted fact that the assessee expired on 21.12.2018 and along

Income Tax Officer, Income Tax Department vs. True Value Homes (India) Private Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1213/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. B.Ramakrishnan, F.C.AFor Respondent: Shri. C.N. Bipin, C.I.T
Section 142(1)Section 142ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 44ASection 69

Assessment Scheme, 2019. Accordingly, a notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 23.09.2019, followed by a notice under section 142(1) of the Act, along with a detailed questionnaire on 20.11.2020. 5. In response to the notices issued by the AO, the assessee furnished financial statements

Mamta Pathak, Thane vs. ITO Ward 1(2) Thane, Thane

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

ITA 3200/MUM/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanassessment Year : 2012-13 Mamta Pathak, Ito, Ward-1(2), 404, 4Th Floor, 6Th Floor, Shivam Apt., Vs. Ashar It Park Mohanji Sunderji Rd No.9, Wagale Estate, Raghunath Nagar, Thane, Thane, Maharashtra-400604. Maharashtra-400604. Pan : Alcpp3684Q (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Tanmay Phadke For Revenue : Shri Pankaj Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 15-10-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-10-2025 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [„Ld.Cit(A)‟], Dated 07-03-2025, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13, Wherein The Assessee Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Tanmay PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 192Section 69

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “J(SMC)” BENCH : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI

M/S. Dharavi Sahakari Patpedhi Maryadit, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -20, Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 3105/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Arun Khodpia ()

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 263Section 80Section 80P

deduction from total income under chapter 6A 3. Subsequently,notice under section 143(2) of the act was issued along with notice under section 142(1) of the act. The assessee furnished various details from time to time and had filed its reply to the notice is issued wide letter

ITO, Ward 16(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Divyesh Ramniklal Muni, Mumbai

ITA 2879/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Arun Khodpia ()

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 54

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (ACCOUNTANT

Fullerton Financial Holdings Pte. Ltd., Singapore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax - (International Taxation), Circle 2(3)(1) - Mumbai, Mumbai

ITA 1137/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt. Renu Jauhri ()

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SMT. RENU JAUHRI (ACCOUNTANT

Dosti Realty Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 6129/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Arun Khodpia ()

Section 115JSection 14ASection 37(1)

return was processed under section 143(1) of the act and subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny. Accordingly, statutory notices under section 142(1) and 143(2) of the act were issued to the assessee. In response to the same, representatives of the assessee appeared before the Ld.AO

Greentek Reman (P) Limited, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 10(3), Delhi

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5479/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Delhi28 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Bleasstt. Year : 2017-18 Greentek Reman Private Limited, Vs. Ito, Ward 10(3), C-129, 2Nd Floor, Naraina Industrial Area-1 New Delhi New Delhi – 110 028 (Pan: Aaecg7749R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT Asstt

ACIT, Delhi vs. Sri Prem Properties Private Limited, New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 4169/DEL/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Oct 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2010-11 Vs. Sri Prem Properties Private Acit, Delhi Ltd., D-6/6032/2, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi Pan: Aaacs2554E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Deepesh Garg, Adv. Department By Sh. Mahesh Kumar, Cit(Dr)

Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153Section 153ASection 153CSection 250Section 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘G’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI

Nc Jewellers, Delhi vs. DCIT, CC-26, Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee was allowed for the statistical purpose

ITA 3464/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year- 2021-22 Nc Jewellers Vs. Dcit, Cc-26, Delhi 7, S.B. Sarafa Market, Chandni Chowk, Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “E”, DELHI BEFORE SH. S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH

Quantum Global Securities Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-20(3), Delhi

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

ITA 3044/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. M. Balaganesh & Sh. Sudhir Kumar

Section 14Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250(6)Section 68

1,48,210/-/-. The case was selected for scrutiny through CASS. Notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued. Subsequently notices under section 142(1) of the Act along with questionnaire were issued, The Assessing officer completed the assessment after making the addition on various heads and assessed

Surabhi Shodh Sansthan, Delhi vs. DCIT Circle Exemp 2(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3042/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. M. Balaganesh & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year2017-18 Surabhi Shodh Sansthan Vs. Dcit, Circle Exemp-2(1), 1428 Maliwara , Chandni Civic Centre, Minto Road, Chowk Delhi 110006 New Delhi Pan No.Aapts1404B (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80G(5)(vi)

case was selected for scrutiny under CASS. Notices under section 143(2) of the Act was issued. Again notice under section 142(1) of the Act with questionnaire were issued. The Assessing Officer completed the after making the addition of Rs.86,28,404/- holding that the assessee has not uploaded

Wudstay Travels Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 25(1), New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2996/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. M. Balaganesh & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Wudstay Travels Private Vs. Assistant Commissioner Limited D8/4 First Floor, Of Income Tax Circle 25 (1) Exclusive Floors Dlf Phase New Delhi -5 Gurgaon Dlf Qe So Gurgaon Pan No. Aabcw6379A (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 194CSection 69

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C”, DELHI BEFORE SH. M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. SUDHIR

Mahesh Ratilal Ganatra, United Kinddom vs. The DCIT, Circle International Taxation-1(3)(1), Delhi

In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2125/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY (Judicial Member), SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vikram Singh Sharma, SR.DR
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 147Section 272A(1)(d)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण िद"ी पीठ “डी”, िद"ी "ी िवकास अव"थी, "ाियक सद" एवं "ी नवीन चं", लेखाकार सद" के सम" IN