← 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)

Nitesh Dutt Jha, Madhubani vs. ITO, Ward- 3 (5), Madhubani

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

ITA 351/PAT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna07 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Rakesh Mishra

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

named- (a) by post or by such courier services as may be approved by the Board (5) Service of Notice of hearing under Section 142(1) and scrutiny assessment on email address and on income tax portal is not sufficient enough for compliance of proper service of notice. - Assessment Invalid

Jitubhai Narottambhai Patel, Na vs. Arivs.Income Tax Officer, NFAC

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

ITA 606/SRT/2025[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Surat07 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Jitubhai Narottambhai Patel, Ito Kumbhar Faliya,Gopivadi, Satem, New Delhi, New Delh110001. Navsari-396466. Vs. Pan No. Ablpp 4256 B Appellant Respondent : None For Assessee Assessee By : Ms. Namita Patel, Sr. Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing : 06/10/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 07/10/2025

For Appellant: Ms. Namita Patel, Sr. DRFor Respondent: None for
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 272A(1)(d)Section 273B

penalty under section 272A(1)(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”), for alleged non-compliance with the notices issued under section 142(1) of the Act. The Assessing Officer, in the impugned penalty order, recorded that during the reassessment proceedings, it was noticed that the assessee ... account maintained with the Bank of Baroda. In order to verify the source of the said deposit, notices under section 142(1) were issued on 26.10.2023 and 29.11.2023. The assessee, however, did not respond to either of these statutory notices. 3.1. Since there was no compliance during reassessment proceddings

Sanjay Motiramji Muley, Nagpur vs. ITO Ward (4)(3), Nagpur

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

ITA 4/NAG/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur07 Oct 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalesanjay Motiramji Muley, Ward No.7, Mahajan Pura ……………. Appellant Bhandara Road, Pardi Nagpur 440008. Pan – Akdpm6463G V/S Income Tax Officer ……………. Respondent Ward–4(4), Nagpur Assessee By : Ms. Alfiya Rozie.Ar Revenue By :Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Ms. Alfiya Rozie.ARFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 50C

income has escaped assessment and issued notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act"). Further, notice under section 142(1) r/w section 143(2) of the Act along with questionnaire calling for the confirmation of unsecured loan, computation of income and property details. Since

Gec Infrastructure Co., Butibori vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(4), Nagpur

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

ITA 100/NAG/2024[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur07 Oct 2025AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalegec Infrastructure Co. A–15/5,,Midc Industrial Area, Butibori, Nagpur 441 112, ……………. Appellant Maharashtra. Pan – Aagfg3541E V/S Income Tax Officer ……………. Respondent Ward–3(4), Nagpur. Assessee By :Shri R.K. Ganeriwal.Ar Revenue By :Shri Surjeet Kumar Shah.Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri R.K. Ganeriwal.ARFor Respondent: Shri Surjeet kumar shah.Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 254

year 2007–08 on 31/10/2007, disclosing total income at Rs. nil. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny and notices were issued under section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") along with questionnaire. In compliance, the assessee has filed financial statements, produced the information ... issues to the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, as per the directions of the Hon’ble Tribunal, the Assessing Officer has issued notice under section 142(1) of the Act calling for the confirmation, affidavit, bills and vouchers for the transactions with the creditors. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee in response

Jagdish Solanki, Jhabua vs. Income Tax Officer Jhabua, Jhabua

ITA 169/IND/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore07 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, इंदौर न्यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT

Malwa Oxygen and Industrial Gases Private Limited, Sector C, Industrial Area vs. AO-Ratlam/Income Tax Officer, NFAC, Ratlam/Delhi

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 713/IND/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore07 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(3)Section 35Section 35(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PARESH M. JOSHI

Amber Enterprises India Limited, Rajpura, Punjab vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala, Punjab

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 554/CHANDI/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Meenakshi Vohra, CIT, DR (Virtual)
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 35Section 35(1)(i)

house R&D expenditure of Rs.19,53,44,667/-. In this connection, the Assessing Officer issued specific queries vide notice under section 142(1) dated 30.12.2021 calling upon the assessee to furnish complete details of the deduction claimed under section 35(1)(i) and 35(2AB) along with supporting evidences ... allowed. 8. We have given thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and perused the record. It is evident from the notices issued under section 142(1) and the assessee’s replies that the Assessing Officer did conduct enquiries specifically on the issue of deduction under section 35(2AB). The assessee

Chiloda Seva Sahakari Mandali Limited, Gandhinagar vs. The ITO, Ward-1 (Previously Ward-5), Gandhinagar

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

ITA 837/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Rameshchandra B. Patel, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Kamal Deep Singh, Sr. D.R
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 80ASection 80A(5)Section 80PSection 80P(2)

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “SMC” BENCH Before Dr. BRR Kumar, Vice President And Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member

Sanjay Jayantilal Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 79/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: S/Shri Sanjay Garg & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2014-2015 Sanjay Jayantilal Shah Ito, Ward-2(1)(1) 202/A, Shivalik 10 Vs. Vejalpur Opp: Sbi Zonal Office Ahmedabad. Ambawadi, Ahmedabad 380 015 Pan : Aktps 8891 A (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri S.N. Divatia & Shri Samir Vora, Ars. : Shri Kalpesh Rupavatia, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30/09/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/10/2025 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per Makarand V.Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.11.2024 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)"], For The Assessment Year 2014–15, Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Dated 31.03.2022 Passed U/S 147 Read With Section 144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") By The National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As "Assessing Officer Or Ao"].

Section 10(38)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68Section 69C

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ ‘D’ अहमदाबाद

Diamines & Chemicals Limited, Vadodara vs. The ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, both the issues relating to disallowance of deduction

ITA 1543/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: S/Shri Sanjay Garg

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rameshwar P. Meena, Sr.DR
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 80I

deduction under section 80IA was claimed on the profits of all the three units. To reconcile the difference, the AO issued notice under section 142(1). The assessee submitted that revenue as per ROI, when increased by Kutch windmill income and reduced by duty drawback, tallied with Form 3CD figures

M/S. Tbea Shenyang Trasformer Group Company Limited, Vadodara vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Int. Tax., Vadodara

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 121/AHD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: S/Shri Sanjay Garg & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2013-2014 M/S.Tbea Shenyang Transformer Dcit, International Group Company Limited Vs. Taxation Tbea Green Energy Park Vadodara. National Highway No.8 Village : Miyagam Karjan Vadodara Pan : Aadct 4557 F (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Ms.Amrin Pathan, Ar : Shri Mahesh Shah, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29/09/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/10/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Makarand V.Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Arises From The Assessment Order Dated 07.11.2017 Passed By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, International Taxation, Vadodara [Hereinafter Referred To As “Assessing Officer Or Ao”], Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For Assessment Year 2013-14 In Accordance With The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel – 2, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As “Drp”]

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(2)Section 144C(5)Section 271(1)(c)Section 92BSection 92CSection 92E

objections on 07.03.2016. The Assessing Officer has noted that the objections were disposed of by a speaking order dated 15.03.2016. Thereafter, notices under section 142(1) were issued from time to time and various details were furnished on different dates. 2.2 The case was referred to the Transfer Pricing Officer

Swapnil Balasaheb Shete, Shirala vs. NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 1701/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1701/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Swapnil Balasaheb Vs Nfac, Delhi Shete, Samarth Agencies, Main Road, 32, Shirala- 415408 Maharashtra Pan-Cpbps0193C Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhale-
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण "बी" न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "B" BENCH, PUNE BEFORE Dr. MANISH BORAD

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Madurai vs. Ramasubbu Minnalkodi, Tirunelveli

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1632/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, J.C.I.TFor Respondent: Shri. R. Venkata Raman, C.A
Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

noted that the assessee has filed an objection vide letter dated 16-11-2009 objecting to the issuance of notice under section 142(1) of the Act without valid service of notice under section 143(2) of the Act. Taking note of the said letter the Tribunal, in our view

Sweety Devi, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-6(1), Chennai

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

ITA 1506/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

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

For Appellant: Mr.H. Yeshwanth Kumar, Adv
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 69C

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी एबी टी. वक", "ाियक

Farida Aboushair, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(2), Bengaluru

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

ITA 987/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Mr. Joseph Varghese, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Balusamy N., D.R
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

ITA No.987/Bang/2025 Farida Aboushair, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1, Raichur vs. Maralbid Padmavathi, Raichur

In the result, appeal filed by theRevenue is dismissed

ITA 1006/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri.Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2016-17 Ito, Vs. Maralbid Padmavathi, Ward – 1, 4-4-145, Zahirabad Raichur, Raichur. Raichur – 584 101, Karnataka. Pan :Anhpp 8615 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Narendra Sharma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Shankar Ganesh D, Addl. Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 12.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.10.2025

For Appellant: Shri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Shankar Ganesh D, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(b)

incorporated by the AO in his Order and the objection filed by the assessee was disposed off on 06.03.2022 and further notice under section 142(1) of the Act was issued on 14.03.2022. In pursuance to notice under section 142(1) of the Act which is quoted in the Assessment

Anguri Devi Khandelwal (Radha Mohan Khandelwal (Legal Heir), Jaipur vs. DCIT Circle-4, Jaipur

Appeal is allowed and the impugned assessment order, and the impugned order passed by Learned

ITA 391/JPR/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Oct 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT &
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 292BSection 68

Despite being duly intimated of the assessee's death, Id. AO proceeded with the assessment by issuing further notices under Section 142(1) and finally passed the assessment order under Section 143(3) on 28.09.2021. all in the name of the dead person. This action renders the entire process ... during the proceedings, and his legal heir repeatedly informed the AO of this fact. Despite these intimations, the AO issued further notices under Section 142(1) and passed the final assessment order in the name of the deceased. The Hon'ble Tribunal held that framing the assessment and raising

Devi Dutt Agarwal, Sitapur vs. Income Tax Officer Sitapur New, Sitapur

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

ITA 103/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow06 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Govind Krishna, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Prajesh Srivastava, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 234ASection 234CSection 250Section 69Section 69A

Devi Dutt maintained with Andhra Bank Sitapur Branch. However, the assessee did not file a return of income. Accordingly, a notice under section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act was issued electronically, but the assessee did not file a return of income. Subsequently, the ld. AO obtained the relevant ... ascertained the details of the cash deposit made with the bank. Since, the assessee had failed to respond to the notice under section 142(1), he issued the assessee a show cause notice under section 144 and upon failure to receive compliance with regard to the same, he, after comparing

P Y C Hindu Gymkhana, Pune vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Pune

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

ITA 1321/PUN/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri C.H. NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 11Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 263

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “B”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL

Ravindra Jaisingrao Chavan, Aurangabad, Maharashtra vs. ACIT, Central Circle 1, Aurangabad, Maharashtra

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as per terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 1109/PUN/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Vardhaman L. JainFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 131Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “B”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL