← 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)

Prasanna Prabhakaran L/H of Late Vasava Panicker Prabhakaran Kavintavadakkadath, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(5), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1741/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2013-14

Section 147Section 148

requiring the assessee to file his return of income. In response thereto, no return was filed by the assessee. (iv) A notice under section 142(1) of the Act was issued by the AO on 30.09.2020, allowing another opportunity to the assessee to file the return of income, but once ... gathered. It was also informed that the death certificate will be uploaded when received. (vi) In response to another notice under section 142(1) with due date of compliance on 5th April 2021, an online response was filed requesting for more time to gather the required information. It was informed

Jalgaon Jilha Sahakari Cottan Marketing Fedration, Jalgaon vs. ITO, Ward1(4), Jalgaon

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

ITA 616/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं / Ita No.616/Pun/2025 धििेंारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Jalgaon Jilha Sahakari Ito, Ward 1(4), Cotton Marketing Jalgaon Fedration Limited, 135/1, Vs. Jilha Peth, Near S.B.I., Jalgaon-425001 Maharashtra Pan-Aadfj8195Q अपीलेंर्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent Assessee By: Smt. Deepa Khare Department By: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date Of Hearing: 24-09-2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 06-10-2025 आदीश/Order Per Dr. Manish Borad:- This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 Dated 30.01.2025 Which Is Arising Out Of Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Dated 10.02.2021. 2. Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:- 1. The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Confirming The Disallowance Of Deduction U/S 80P(2)(A)(Iv) Without Appreciating The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Not Appreciating That The Non- Compliance Was Reasons Beyond The Control Of The Appellant. The Appellant Prays That Opportunity May Kindly Be Provided To Explain Its Case.

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80P(2)(a)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण ।येंयपीण प णी या न् " ए " IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "A" BENCH, PUNE BEFORE Dr

Rajamuri Shivaraj, Mahabubnagar vs. ITO., Ward-1, Mahabubnagar

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

ITA 897/HYD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Sri Mohd. Afzal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri Madan Mohan Meena,Sr. AR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD “A” BENCH: HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI MANJUNATHA G, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Ateequr Rahman, Nizamabad vs. ITO., Ward-1, Sangareddy

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

ITA 896/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Sri Tejprakash Toshniwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri Madan Mohan Meena, Sr. AR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD “A” BENCH: HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI MANJUNATHA G, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Magnaquest Technologies Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-5(1), Hyderabad

In the result, ITA.No.736/Hyd

ITA 743/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA, G Srinivasa RaoFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 438Section 43B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD “B” BENCH: HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANJUNATHA

Magnaquest Technologies Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-5(1), Hyderabad

In the result, ITA.No.736/Hyd

ITA 736/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA, G Srinivasa RaoFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 438Section 43B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD “B” BENCH: HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANJUNATHA

Sama Sangeeta Reddy Rep. by Gpa Holder Sama Sunil Kumar Reddy, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-3(2), Hyderabad

In the result appeal of the assessee allowed

ITA 680/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA, KA Sai PrasadFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD “B” BENCH: HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANJUNATHA

DCIT., Circle-1(1), Hyderabad vs. B T T Industries Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal ITA

ITA 513/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA Ch. Satya DinakarFor Respondent: MS U Mini Chandran, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD “A” BENCH: HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANJUNATHA

DCIT., Circle-1(1), Hyderabad vs. B T T Industries Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal ITA

ITA 512/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA Ch. Satya DinakarFor Respondent: MS U Mini Chandran, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD “A” BENCH: HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANJUNATHA

DCIT., Circle-1(1), Hyderabad vs. B T T Industries Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal ITA

ITA 511/HYD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA Ch. Satya DinakarFor Respondent: MS U Mini Chandran, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD “A” BENCH: HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANJUNATHA

Exel Rubber Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for the

ITA 1233/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, CA
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 148BSection 149Section 149(1)(b)Section 151

ITA Nos 1106 to 1109 and 1233 of 2025 Exel Rubber Pvt Ltd TER WHAT HRT, seeTaTT AT IN THE

Gayatri Projects Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle 2(1), Hyderabad

ITA 1110/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Sept 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Sri S. Rama Rao, Advocate For Revenue : Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80I

company. In response to notice under section 148 of the Act, the assessee company has not furnished return of income. Therefore, notice under section 142(1) of the Act dated 22.11.2021 was issued and served on the assessee company. Once again there was no compliance from the assessee company. Therefore

Vibha Agrotech Ltd., Hyd, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-3(3), Hyderabad

In the result appeal of the Revenue and appeal of the Assessee are dismissed

ITA 331/HYD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-DR
Section 10(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35

been selected for scrutiny and notice under section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued. In response to notice under section 142(1) dated 14.03.2014, the assessee has enclosed copy of revised return filed on 19.02.2014 declaring total 5 ITA.Nos.289 & 331/Hyd./2016 income at Rs.NIL

DCIT, Circle-17(2), Hyd, Hyderabad vs. Vibha Agrotech Ltd., Hyd, Hyderabad

In the result appeal of the Revenue and appeal of the Assessee are dismissed

ITA 289/HYD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-DR
Section 10(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35

been selected for scrutiny and notice under section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued. In response to notice under section 142(1) dated 14.03.2014, the assessee has enclosed copy of revised return filed on 19.02.2014 declaring total 5 ITA.Nos.289 & 331/Hyd./2016 income at Rs.NIL

Saranga Anil Aggarwal, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle 14(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee

ITA 4887/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI RAJ KUMAR

Saranga Anil Aggarwal, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle 14(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee

ITA 4867/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2025AY 2012-13
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI RAJ KUMAR

ITO, Delhi vs. Usha Rani, Delhi

Appeal are allowed

ITA 2286/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2016-17 Ito, Vs Usha Rani, Ward-44(1), 593, Rani Bagh, Delhi. Delhi. Pan: Ahrpc1449F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sanjay Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.09.2025 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 07.02.2025 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. First Appellate Authority Or ‘The Ld. Faa’ For Short) In Appeal No.Nfac/2015-16/10332913 Arising Out Of The Appeal Before It Against The Order Dated 08.03.2024 Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’) By The Ito, Ward-44(1), Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao). 2. On Hearing Both The Sides, We Find That The Case Of The Revenue Is That The Assessee Has Been Erroneously Benefitted By The Ld.Cit(A) As The Source Of The Source Of Her Husband’S Agricultural Activities Has Not Been Examined. We Find That The Revenue Has Also Raised A Ground That Additional Evidences Were Accepted Without Giving The Ao An Opportunity To Contest.

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES: A : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI

Kiran, Delhi vs. ITO Ward-43(1), Delhi

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

ITA 1495/DEL/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Sept 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Kumar Jain, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 69ASection 69C

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

Saket Agarwal, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -45(2), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6116/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2017-18] Shri Saket Agrawal, Vs Ito, 392/1, 2Nd Floor, Ward-45(2), Sainik Vihar, Pitam Pura, Delhi Delhi-110085. Pan-Aavpa3410D Appellant Respondent Appellant By Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv., Shri Somil Aggarwal, Adv. & Shri Saksham Aggarwal, Ca Respondent By Shri Narpat Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 26.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24.09.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 10.12.2024 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Cit(A), Delhi-15/10489/2019-20 U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act,1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 31.12.2019 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income On 26.03.2018, Declaring Total Income Of Inr 10,02,940/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Complete Scrutiny For The Reason That Assessee Has Deposited Cash In Specified Bank Notes (Sbn) During Demonetization & Due To The Survey Carried Out At The Business Premises Of The Assessee.

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 250Section 68Section 69C

filed a belated return on 26.03.2018 declaring total income of Rs. 10,02,940/-. The return was filed only after two notices under section 142(1) were issued due to non- compliance and failure to file the return within the prescribed time. (iii) The case was selected for scrutiny

Dairy India Private Limited, Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax - Circle - 7(1), Delhi

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

ITA 1987/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER and SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Bhupinderjit Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER and SHRIS.RIFAUR