← 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)

Franklin Templeton International Services (I) P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 3(1)(OSD), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2007-08 and 2008-09 stands partly allowed

ITA 6986/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

Section 133(6)Section 92D

case was selected for scrutiny and statutory notice under section 143(2) of the act along with notice under section 142(1) of the act was issued to assessee. In response to the statutory notices, representative of the assessee appeared before the Ld.AO and filed requisite details as called

Photon Ultrawave Private Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-19(2), Delhi

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 2638/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2025AY 2017-18
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 68

involving the above group entity alongwith the Assessing Officer i.e. the ITO, 3 | P a g e Ward-19(2), Delhi’ section 142(1) notice dated 8th March, 2019 raising a specific question of the above investment amounting to Rs. 28 crores; the latter reply dated 10.12.2019 and 17.12.2019 along

Sanjay Malhotra, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-29(3), Delhi

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

ITA 2255/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmansanjay Malhotra, Vs. Ito, Ward 29 (3), Hs – 23, Second Floor, Kailash Colony, Delhi. New Delhi – 122 002. (Pan : Aaipm0514F) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri K. Sampath, Advocate Shri V. Rajkumar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.07.2025 Date Of Order : 13.10.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [For Short ‘Ld. Cit (A)] For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2017-18 On 27.10.2017 Declaring An Income Of Rs.15,06,840/-. The Case Was Selected For Complete Scrutiny Under Cass. Notices Under Section 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Income-Tax Act

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

stock register and VAT returns (original and revised). Subsequently, assessee furnished a reply on 20.12.2019 as under :- "Kindly refer to your notice under section 142(1) dated 1111212019, fol/owing further submission is made: It is submitted in this connection as under: (1) That the assessee is dealing in purchase/sales

Adhunik Akshat Udyog Pvt. Ltd., Dumka vs. ACIT, Circle-3(1), Deoghar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 163/RAN/2025[12-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi10 Oct 2025

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.163/Ran/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Adhunik Akshat Udyog Pvt. Ltd……………............................……….……Appellant Industrial Area, Babupur, Muffasil Thana Dumka, Jharkhand – 814101. [Pan: Aabca4896Q] Vs. Acit, Circle-3(1), Deoghar…...…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sushil Pransukha, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 28, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 10, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)”] Dated 11.03.2025 Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (The “Act”) For The Assessment Year 2012–13. 2. Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Company Filed Its Return Of Income For Ay 2012–13 Declaring Total Income Of ₹2,57,551. The Case Was Reopened Under Section 147 On The Ground That The Assessee Had Raised Share Capital & Share Premium From Certain Entities, Whose Financial Capacity & Genuineness Of Investment Remained Unexplained. During Assessment, The Ao Noted That The Assessee Had Introduced Share Capital Of ₹37,50,000 From The Following Four Private Limited Companies:

Section 131Section 147Section 250Section 68

shares) Linton consultant Pvt. Ltd. – Share capital ₹2,00,000, Premium ₹8,00,000 (2,000 shares) The AO issued notices under sections 142(1) and 133(6) to the subscribers. Two notices were returned unserved, while in other cases, the companies were alleged to be “shell entities.” Since

Smt. Anita Banodha Alias Anita Kathgar, Anita Auto, Pondi Chirmiri Korea, Korea vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 230/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur10 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.230/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Smt. Anita Banodha Alias Anita Kathgar Anita Auto, Pondi, West Chirmiri, Korea (C.G)-497 449 Pan: Afgpj1876C ........अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Raipur-1(C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Sethia, CAFor Respondent: Shri Raghunath, CIT-DR
Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 263

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ रायपुर म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI PARTHA

Prakash Gupta, Gopalganj vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward- 2 (4), Siwan

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

ITA 206/PAT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna10 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

that due to remote location and lack of access to professional tax guidance, he was unable to respond to the notices issued under section 142(1), which led to an ex parte assessment under section 144 of the Act. Thus, after perusing the same, we find that as the assessment

Syed Nazim Moinuddin Quazi, Nagpur vs. ITO Ward 2(3), Nagpur

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

ITA 503/NAG/2025[2020 - 2021]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur10 Oct 2025

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalesayed Nazim Maoinuddin Quazi, Pltono.11–A & House Noquadri Enclave, Opp. Suri Laws Behind Police Line Takli ……………. Appellant Nagpur 440 013, Maharashtra. Pan–Aaapq2442A V/S Income Tax Officer ……………. Respondent Ward–2(3), Nagpur, Maharashtra. Assessee By:Ms.Alfiya Rozie, A.R. Revenue By :Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Ms.Alfiya Rozie, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Sayed Nazim Maoinuddin Quazi

Abid Mustafa Khan, Nagpur vs. ITO Ward-2(3), Nagpur

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

ITA 502/NAG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur10 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleabid Mustafa Khan, 301, Mayfair Residency, Raj Nagar Opp. Green Park, Nagpur 440 013, ……………. Appellant Maharashtra. Pan – Aqipk9595G V/S Income Tax Officer ……………. Respondent Ward–3(2), Nagpur, Maharashtra. Assessee By: Shri K.K. Thakkar. A.R. Revenue By :Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri K.K. Thakkar. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 69A

assessee from the Bank by issuing notice u/sec 3 Abid Mustafa Khan ITA no.502/Nag./2025 133(6) of the Act. Further notice under section 142(1) of the Act was issued and there was no proper compliance the Assessing Officer found that the explanations does not satisfy the sources

Arpita Mathew Arukakkal, Nagpur vs. ITO Ward 5(3), Nagpur

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

ITA 501/NAG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur10 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalearpita Mathew Arukakkal, Residency Road, Sadar Nagpur- 440001, ……………. Appellant Maharashtra. Pan – Arkpm3965D V/S Income Tax Officer ……………. Respondent Ward–5(3), Nagpur, Maharashtra. Assessee By:Shri.Sapan Usrethe.A.R. Revenue By :Shri.Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri.Sapan Usrethe.A.RFor Respondent: Shri.Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.DR
Section 144Section 144BSection 148Section 151(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Arpita Mathew Arukakkal, Residency

Prashant Arvind Tayade, Amravati vs. ITO Ward 5, Amravati

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

ITA 467/NAG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur10 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleprashant Arvind Tayade, Plot No.33, Parakashta Jalpurti Colony, Ymv Road ……………. Appellant Amravati 444604, Maharashtra. Pan–Agtpt6782D V/S Income Tax Officer Ward–5, Ito Building, ……………. Respondent Saturna, Amravati-444607, Maharashtra. Assessee By: Shri.Bhushan Lathiya.A.R. Revenue By :Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri.Bhushan Lathiya.A.RFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr. DR
Section 250Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Prashant Arvind Tayade, Plot

Prakash Sheshrao Wankhede, Koradi Kamptee, Nagpur vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(4), Nagpur

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

ITA 461/NAG/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur10 Oct 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleprakash Sheshrao Wankhede, Khaprikoradi, Ward No.6 Near Hanuman Mandir Tehsil Kamptee, Koradi (Nv) ……………. Appellant Nagpur -441 111, Maharashtra. Pan–Abypw7048B V/S Income Tax Officer ……………. Respondent Ward–3(4), Nagpur Assessee By: None Revenue By : Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr.DR
Section 54F

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Prakash Sheshrao Wankhede, KhapriKoradi

Sudam Kisanrao Wani, Nagpur vs. ITO Ward 3(1), Nagpur

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

ITA 460/NAG/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur10 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalesudam Kisanrao Wani, Plot No.86A, Vitthal Nagar–Ii Hudkeshwar, Maiginagar ……………. Appellant Nagpur -440 034, Maharashtra. Pan- Aaypw9239K V/S Income Tax Officer ……………. Respondent Ward–3(1), Nagpur Assessee By: Shri.Naresh Jakhotia.A.R. Revenue By : Shri.Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri.Naresh Jakhotia.A.RFor Respondent: Shri.Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.DR
Section 144Section 148Section 69

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Sudam Kisanrao Wani, Plot

Mulchand Jaganath Ragit, Nagpur vs. ITO Ward 3(4), Nagpur

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

ITA 454/NAG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur10 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri.Abhay Agrawal. A.RFor Respondent: Shri.Surjit Kumar Saha. Sr. D.R
Section 148Section 45

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA no.454/Nag./2025 (Assessment

Leena Ashok Zope, Akola vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward - 3, Akola

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

ITA 428/NAG/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur10 Oct 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleleena Ashok Zope, At Post Kurum, Tq. Murtizapur Dist. Akola -444 115, ……………. Appellant Maharashtra. Pan- Aatpz1101G V/S Income Tax Officer Ward–3, Aayakar Bhawan, ……………. Respondent Akola-444001, Maharashtra. Assessee By: Shri.Manoj G. Moryani.Ar Revenue By : Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri.Manoj G. Moryani.ARFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.DR
Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 56(1)(x)Section 56(2)(x)Section 69

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Leena Ashok Zope, At

Kunda Gayakwad, Nagpur vs. ITO Ward 2(3), Nagpur

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

ITA 403/NAG/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur10 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shripavan Kumar Gadalekunda Mahadev Gayakwad, Plot.No.B-60, Murlidhar Society, Koradi Road, ……………. Appellant Nagpur 441111, Maharashtra. Pan – Cpmpg5995R V/S Income Tax Officer ……………. Respondent Ward–2(3), Nagpur, Maharashtra. Assessee By:Shri.Madhao Vichore.A.R. Revenue By :Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr. D.R.

For Appellant: Shri.Madhao Vichore.A.RFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr. D.R
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 54

escaped assessment and issued notices u/sec 148 of the Act and there was no compliance. The assessee was also served with notice under section 142(1) of the Act on various dates and show cause notice was issued on 6.12.2023. Whereas, the assessee in lieu of show cause has filed

Kishore Bhagwandas Nagdeo, Washim vs. ITO Ward-2, Washim

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

ITA 395/NAG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur10 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalekishore Bhagwandasnagdeo, Ice An Spice, Opp. Shivaji High School ……………. Appellant Washim 444 505, Maharashtra. Pan–Acvpn7049R V/S Income Tax Officer ……………. Respondent Ward–2, Washim, Maharashtra. Assessee By: Shriharish Bhoneja.A.R. Revenue By :Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.Dr

For Appellant: ShriHarish Bhoneja.A.RFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.DR
Section 44ASection 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Kishore BhagwandasNagdeo, ICE An

Globus Housing, Bhopal vs. Assessment Unit, NFAC, Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and the “impugned

ITA 872/IND/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore10 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 253Section 68

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, इंदौर "ायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI

Princess Infra & Development LLP, Kota vs. ACIT-Central Circle-Kota, Kota

In the result, both the appeals of the assesseeare allowed for statistical purposes as indicate hereinabove

ITA 859/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Saurav Harsh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR
Section 144Section 153B(1)(b)Section 153CSection 56(2)(X)Section 68

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

Princess Infra & Development LLP, Kota vs. ACIT-Central Circle-Kota, Kota

In the result, both the appeals of the assesseeare allowed for statistical purposes as indicate hereinabove

ITA 858/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Saurav Harsh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR
Section 144Section 153B(1)(b)Section 153CSection 56(2)(X)Section 68

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

Pramila Agarwal, Jaipur vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-2(5), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 531/JPR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Oct 2025AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gorav Avasthi, JCIT
Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 68

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR डा० एस. सीतालक्ष्मी, न्यायिक