“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)

DCIT Central Circle, 1(4), Kolkata vs. Jupiter International Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 852/KOL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 852/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,….…Appellant Central Circle-1(4), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shanti Pally, Kolkata-700107 -Vs.- Jupiter International Limited,…………….…Respondent Unnayanam, 20A, Ashutosh Chowdhury Avenue, Kolkata-700019, West Bengal [Pan:Aaacj6956B] Appearances By: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate, Shri Pranabesh Sarkar, Advocate & Shri K.K. Chhaparia, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri P.N. Barnwal, Cit, D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: August 07, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: September 30, 2025 O R D E R

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

assessee. In response to the said notice, return of income admitting total income at NIL was filed on 28.06.2016. Subsequently notice under section 142(1) dated 18.07.2016 along with detailed questionnaire was issued and duly served upon the assessee-company. The ld. Assessing Officer computed the assessment under section

Limrass Construction Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 5002/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 41(1)Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAJ

Professional Artist Cosmetics LLP, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -41, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3799/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

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

selected for complete scrutiny, with focus on unsecured loans and interest payments. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer issued detailed notices under section 142(1), seeking reconciliation of unsecured loan figures, party-wise confirmations, bank statements, and an explanation for variations in interest rates. 3. In response, the assessee

Anuh Pharma Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -5, Mumbai

ITA 2911/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80Section 80GSection 80I

undertakings engaged in generation of various power.” 6.2 It is not in dispute that the assessee, in response to notice under section 142(1), furnished certain replies and documents asserting its eligibility for deduction under section 80IA of the Act on account of generation of “cooling power” from the cooling

Ganpat Thakur (Legal Heir of Late Shri Balaram Gopinath Thakur), Raigad vs. I.T.O., Ward-28(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1955/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Ms. Ritika AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary- Sr. AR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 154Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SMT. RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Ganpat Thakur (Legal Heir of Late Shri Balaram Gopinath Thakur), Raigad vs. I.T.O., Ward-28(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1954/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Ms. Ritika AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary- Sr. AR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 154Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SMT. RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Kiran Kantilal Sanghvi, Malad West, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 41(3)(2) Mumbai, Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1663/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (ACCOUNTANT

Ebay Singapore Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 2(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2378/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

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

Section 143(2)Section 253

section 143(2) of the Act, challenging the validity of the jurisdiction of NFAC to issue the notice. Thereafter, notice was issued under section 142(1) by the Ld.DCIT-1(2)(2). Delhi, against which the assessee filed a letter requesting to transfer the jurisdiction of assessee to Mumbai. Subsequently

Chirag Kirpal, Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 656/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarchirag Kirpal, Vs. Acit, C/O. Anuj Bhatia, C-3, Bali International Taxation, Nagar, New Raja Garden, Gurgaon New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Bwxpk8788D Assessee By : Shri. S. K. Gupta, Ca Revenue By: Shri M. S. Nethrapal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 17/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/09/2025

For Appellant: Shri. S. K. Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri M. S. Nethrapal, CIT DR

Section 139Section 143(2)Section 144BSection 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151

would assume jurisdiction for assessment, reassessment or recomputation in cases of income escaping assessment only from stage of issuing notice under section 142(1) or 143(2) of the Act. 8. We find that the Hon‘ble Jurisdictional High Court being the Punjab and Haryana High Court has decided

Babu Singh, Gautam Buddha Nagar vs. Assessment Unit, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3440/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalbabu Singh, Assessment Unit, 138, Village-Mirzapur, Knp-W-(100) (6), P.O.-Dankaur, Vs. Income Tax Department Distt. Gautam Buddha Nagar, Uttar Pradesh 203201. Pan-Eakps8485M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Udham Singh, Adv. Department By Shri Shyam Manohar Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 25/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/09/2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A), In Short] Dated 10.03.2025 In Appeal No. Nfac/2014-15/10297028 Arising Out Of Order Passed U/S 271(1)(B) Of The Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’) Dated 20.09.2023 For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessment Of The Assessee Was Completed Vide Order Dated 21.03.2023 Passed U/S 147/144 R.W.S 144B Of The Act Wherein The Penalty Proceedings U/S 271(1)(B) Were Initiated For Non-Compliance Of The Statutory Notices. Thereafter, The Ao Proceeded With Pending Penalty Proceedings U/S Babu Singh Vs. Assessment Unit 271(1)(B) & In Terms Of Order Dated 20.09.2023 Levied Penalty Of Rs.20,000/- For Non-Compliance Of The Statutory Notices Issued U/S 142(1) Of The Act On 17.01.2023 & 01.02.2023. 3. Against Such Order, An Appeal Was Preferred By The Assessee Before The Ld. Cit(A) Who Vide Impugned Order Dated 10.03.2023 Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Therefore, The Assessee Is In Appeal Before The Tribunal.

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(b)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH

M/S Public Education Board Rewari, Haryana vs. Income Tax Officer, Haryana

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

ITA 2988/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sudhir Kumarm/.S Public Education Board Rewari, Vs. Income Tax Officer, C/O. Kishan Lal Public Col, Delhi Exemption Ward, Road, Rewari, Haryana-123401 Rohtak (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aabap5553F

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 102Section 115BSection 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 249(4)(b)Section 69A

Since the assessee had not filed its return of income for the assessment year 2017-18, notice under section 142(1) of the Act was issued to the assessee on 12-12-2017 requiring the assessee to prepare a true and correct return of its income for assessment year

Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Faridabad vs. Bharti Jain, Delhi

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 5717/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Bleito, Ward 1(1), Vs. Bharti Jain, Faridabad Qd-61, Vishakha Enclave, Pitampura, New Delhi-88 (Pan: Aftpg37441G) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Sh. Mayank Patwari, Adv

Section 10(38)Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi vs. Samyak Metals Private Limited, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1846/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1846/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2017-18 बनाम Dcit, Samyak Metals Pvt. Ltd., Room No.225 E, 2Nd Floor, 441-B, 2Nd Floor, Vs. C.R. Bldg., I.P. Estate, Katra Nabi Bux, New Delhi. Sadar Bazar, Delhi. Pan No.Aahcs8928H अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

subsequently selected for complete scrutiny under CASS. Thereafter, Notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 14.09.2018 and Notices under section 142(1) along with detailed questionnaires were issued by the Assessing Officer. During assessment, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee had raised unsecured loans amounting

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Noida vs. Saraswati Ammal Education and Charitable Trust, Chennai

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 2291/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132Section 133ASection 142Section 144Section 153Section 153CSection 69ASection 69C