“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)

Fairbridge Capital Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax, Mumbai - 6, Mumbai, Maharashtra

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3626/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Ms. Chandni Shah a/w Mr. Hardik Nirmal andFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT, D/R [virtually

Section 143(3)Section 263

। आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण न्यायपीठ, मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON'BLE

Jain Textile Industries, Gurgaon vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-1(1), Gurgaon

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is dismissed as devoid of

ITA 932/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Jain Textile Industries, V Assistant Commissioner Of 38, Milestone, Behrampur S Income Tax, Circle-1(1) Road, Village Khandsa, Hsiiddc Building, 4Th Floor, Gurgaon, Haryana Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon Pan: Aabfj8405F Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Bhupender Jit Kumar, Adv, Sh. Nikhil Sharma, Adv & Sh. Tushar Kalra, Adv Revenue By Sh. Dheeraj Kumar Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 03/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24/10/2025

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 251(1)(a)

F/17/2021-22/1035150715(1) dated 27.08.2021 were provided to the Appellant through e-fling portal. 4 Jain Textile Industries Vs.ACIT 3. Thereafter, notice under section 142(1) was issued by the AO on 29.11.2021 requiring the Appellant to fle the basic details, fnancial statements including the tax audit report. Vide subsequent notice ... dated 16.12.2021 followed by reminder notice dated 23.12.2021 issued under section 142(1) of the Act, the AO asked the Appellant to justify on interest income of Rs. 5,17,281/- and claim of purchases of accessories amounting to Rs. 1,27,34,279/- debited to Proft& Loss account

Vijay Kumar Sharma, Muzaffarnagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Muzaffarnagar

Appeal is partly allowed in the aforesaid terms

ITA 5401/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Bleasstt. Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Gourav Garg, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Pandey, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148

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

Nkc Projects Private Limited, Jaipur vs. PCIT Delhi-4, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2804/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL

Sri Prem Properties Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle-24(1), New Delhi, Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 957/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Sri Prem Properties Private Limited, Vs. Acit, Circle 24 (1), A – 99, Bajghera Chowk, Delhi. New Palam Vihar, Gurgaon – 122 017 (Haryana). (Pan :Aaacs2554E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate Shri Skasham Agarwal, Ca Shri Deepesh Garg, Advocate Revenue By : Ms. Kirti Sankratyayan, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 01.09.2025 Date Of Order : 24.10.2025 Order Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-23, New Delhi [For Short ‘Ld. Cit (A)]Dated 04.01.2024 For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, Assessee Filed Its Original Return Of Income On 30.09.2012 Declaring An Income Of Rs.2,15,340/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny For The Year Under Consideration.

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Kirti Sankratyayan, CIT DR

Section 132Section 147Section 148

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 3, Delhi vs. Ved Prakash Chanana, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2018-19 is allowed

ITA 4993/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Nirbhay Mehta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT DR

Section 127(1)Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI

Ved Prakash Chanana, Delhi vs. ACIT CC- 3, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2018-19 is allowed

ITA 4644/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Nirbhay Mehta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT DR

Section 127(1)Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI

Ved Prakash Chanana, Delhi vs. ACIT CC 03, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2018-19 is allowed

ITA 4643/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Nirbhay Mehta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT DR

Section 127(1)Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI

Juniper Networks Solution India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Assessment Unit, NFAC Itd, New Delhi

In the result, ground no 3 raised by the assessee is allowed in its favour

ITA 4400/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Juniper Networks Solution India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Assessment Unit, Unit No.Iia, 06Th Floor, Dlf Centre, Nfac Itd, Parliament Street, Connaught Place, New Delhi – 110 001. (Pan : Aaecj1345A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sachit Jolly, Sr. Advocate Shri Sandeep Bhalla, Advocate Shri Anurag Singhal, Ca Revenue By : Shri S.K. Jadhav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.08.2025 Date Of Order : 24.10.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Preferred By The Assessees Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 27.07.2024 Passed By The Income Tax Department, Assessment Unit U/S 143(3) Read With Section 144C(13)/144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act”) For Assessment Year 2020-21 Pursuant To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel U/S 144C(5) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jadhav, CIT DR

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘H’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI

DCIT, Central Circle-14, Delhi vs. Parveen Aggarwal, Gurgaon

Accordingly the same are hereby upheld. Grounds of appeal Nos. 1 & 2 raised by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 197/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Parveen Aggarwal, Vs Acit, Ma-1/7, 3D, Garden Central Circle-14, Estate, M.G.Road, Gurgaon New Delhi Haryana-122002. Pan-Aahpa0660R Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2012-13] Dcit, Vs Parveen Aggarwal, Central Circle-14, Ma-1/7, 3D, Garden New Delhi Estate, M.G.Road, Gurgaon, Haryana-122002. Pan-Aahpa0660R Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri K.Sampath, Adv. & Shri V.Rajkumar, Adv. Revenue By Ms. Pooja Swaroop, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 29.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24.10.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Captioned Cross-Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A)- 27, New Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 28.11.2022 In Appeal No. Cit(A), Delhi-27/10482/2019-20 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising From The Assessment Order Dt. 31.12.2019 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2012-13. Ita Nos.178 & 197/Del/2023

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

ITA Nos.178 & 197/Del/2023 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “B” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S, JUDICIAL

Parveen Aggarwal, Gurgaon vs. ACIT Central Circle-14, New Delhi

Accordingly the same are hereby upheld. Grounds of appeal Nos. 1 & 2 raised by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 178/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

ITA Nos.178 & 197/Del/2023 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “B” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S, JUDICIAL

Indo Hi Tech Industries, Bhaktinagar Station Plot vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(2)(1), It-Office

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

ITA 593/RJT/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot23 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 593/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2012-13) Indo Hi Tech Industries The Ito Ward – 1(2)(1) Bhaktinagar Station Plot Street No. Vs. It-Office, Near Aayakar Bhawan, 5/10, Near Ranjit Transport Vatiaka, Rajkot (Gujrat)- 360001 Rajkot - 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaffi8696B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Adjournment Application

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 263

आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण,राजकोट"ायपीठ,राजकोट। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, “SMC” RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT

Indo Hi Tech Industries, Rajkot vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), Rajkot

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

ITA 592/RJT/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot23 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 592/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2011-12) Indo Hi Tech Industries The Ito Ward – 1(2)(1) Bhaktinagar Station Plot Street No. Vs. It-Office, Near Aayakar Bhawan, 5/10, Near Ranjit Transport Vatiaka, Rajkot(Gujrat) - 360001 Rajkot - 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaffi8696B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Adjournment Application

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 250Section 263

Manisha Kumari, Patna vs. Ward-5(2), Patna

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above

ITA 286/PAT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna23 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.286/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Manisha Kumari…..……………..………. …………………....Appellant 5, Indrapuri, Keshri Nagar, Indrapuri, Patna, Pin-800024. Bihar.. [Pan: Afmpk0739D] Vs. Ito, Ward-5(2), Patna ......…..……………..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Shikesh Jha, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 14, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 23, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 18.11.2024 Of The Learned Cit(A), Nfac Relating To The Assessment Year 2016–17. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual Who Filed A Return Of Income Declaring Total Income Of ₹2,29,470 For The Assessment Year 2016–17. Based On Information That Income To The Tune Of ₹7,50,000 Had Escaped Assessment, The Assessing Officer Recorded Reasons For Reopening The Case & Obtained The Necessary Approval From The Competent Authority. Consequently, Notice Under Section 148 Of The Act Was Issued To The Assessee. No Return Of Income Was Filed In Response To The Said Notice. Thereafter, Notices Under Section 142(1) Along With

Section 142(1)Section 148

issued to the assessee. No return of income was filed in response to the said notice. Thereafter, notices under Section 142(1) along with I.T.A. No.286/Pat/2025 Manisha Kumari show-cause notices were issued, however, the assessee failed to comply with the same. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment

Bababhai Sadarbhai Shaikh, Ahmednagar vs. ITO Ward 1, Ahmednagar

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

ITA 144/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2015-16 Bababhai Sadarbhai Shaikh Ito, Ward 1, Nr Goraba Takies Jamkhed, Vs. Ahmednagar Ahmednagar – 413201 Pan: Hozps1445M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Suhas P Bora Department By : Shri Ratnakar Bhimrao Shelake Date Of Hearing : 10-09-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 23-10-2025 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp:

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P BoraFor Respondent: Shri Ratnakar Bhimrao Shelake

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS. ASTHA

Dipak Agarwalla HUF, Malda vs. ITO, Ward 3(1), Malda

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

ITA 1400/KOL/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Oct 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: This Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition Along With An Affidavit Explaining The Reasons For The Delay. After Considering The Petition & The Submissions Made, We Are Satisfied That There Was Sufficient Cause For The Delay. Accordingly, The Delay Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted For Adjudication.

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250

notice under section 148 was issued. Despite service of notice, the assessee did not file any return of income. Subsequently, notice under section 142(1) was issued, in response to which a partial reply was filed. However, no supporting documentary evidence was produced to explain the total credits

Karunakaran Srinivasan, Chennai vs. DCIT, Ncc-17(1), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1995/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. S. Dharshan Bothra, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, J.C.I.T

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 234BSection 69A

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी जॉज" जॉज

Sarveswaran Deepa, Kanchipuram vs. The Income Tax Officer, Non Corp Ward 22(6), Tambaram

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1973/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. R. S. Lakshmi Narayana, Advocate

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 274

STUN areas sifMear, ‘Ay earatio, teas IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI aft sitet sitet &, Soeaer Us

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Madurai vs. Transworld Garnet India Pvt Ltd., Chennai

In the result, all the five appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1878/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 40A(3)

STUN areas sifMear, ‘Ay earatio, teas IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI aft sitet sitet &, Soeaer Us

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Madurai vs. Transworld Garnet India Pvt Ltd., Chennai

ITA 1877/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri. R.Venkata Raman, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Shiva Srinivas, C.I.T

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 40A(3)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'बी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'B' BENCH, CHENNAI श्री जॉर्ज जॉर्ज के, उपाध्यक्ष