← 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)

Partap Singh, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-55(1), New Delhi

In the result appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 7359/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Krinwant Sahay

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68

1 ITA Nos. 7357, 7358 & 7359/Del/2019 Partap Singh v. ACIT IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F”: NEW

Partap Singh, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-55(1), New Delhi

In the result appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 7358/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Sept 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Krinwant Sahay

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68

1 ITA Nos. 7357, 7358 & 7359/Del/2019 Partap Singh v. ACIT IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F”: NEW

Partap Singh, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-55(1), New Delhi

In the result appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 7357/DEL/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Sept 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Krinwant Sahay

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68

1 ITA Nos. 7357, 7358 & 7359/Del/2019 Partap Singh v. ACIT IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F”: NEW

Shirguppi Sugar Works Limited, Belagavi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(1), Belgaum

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

ITA 252/PAN/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji22 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalei T A. No.252/Pan/2025 (A.Y. 2012-13) Shirguppi Sugar Works Vs Ito-Ward-1(1), Limited, Feroj Khimjibhai Cpx, No.62,Ambi Galli, Civil Hospital Road At Post- Manjari, Belagavi-590001. Tal Chikodi, Karnataka. Belagavi-591213, Karnataka.

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH PANAJI BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I T A. No.252/PAN/2025

Nand Kumar Choudhary, Bargarh vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward Bargarh, Bandu Vikira Chowk

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 420/CTK/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack22 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.420/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2016-2017) Nand Kumar Choudhury Vs Ito, Ward- Bargarh, Bargarh Rengalapali Camp, Attabira, Baragarh, 768027 Pan No. : Aaqpc 1181 Q (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Surana, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 22/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22/09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Ld.Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre(Nfac), Delhi Order Dated 06/05/2025 Passed In Appeal No. Nfac/2015-16/10166862 For The Assessment Year 2016-2017. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Assessment Order In The Case Of Assessee Has Been Passed By The Nfac On 28.03.2022. It Was The Submission That The Notification By Which The National Faceless Assessment Centre Was Made Effective Is Dated 29.03.2022. It Was The Submission That Consequently The Assessment Order Passed On 28.03.2022 Is Liable To Be Quashed. Ld. Ar Placed Reliance On The Decision Of The Coordinate Bench Of The Tribunal In The Case Of Md. Mahimud Sk In Ita Nos.2230&2229/Kol/2024 Pronounced On 04.03.2025, Wherein In Para 10 To 12, The Coordinate Bench Of The Tribunal Has Held As Under :-

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, कटक न्यायपीठ,कटक IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK (THROUGH VIRTUAL HEARING) श्री जाजज

Nirmalkumar Agrawal HUF, Nagpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Bhandara

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 242/NAG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur22 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Loya a/wFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 263

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.M. ROY

Gajanand Financial Consultancy Private Limited, Nagpur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Nagpur, Nagpur

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 126/NAG/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur22 Sept 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

5IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.M. ROY

Alzarafa Travel & Manpower Consultants (P) Ltd, Ernakulam vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Kochi

Accordingly, the Assessment Order, dated 05/03/2024, for the Assessment Year 2015-2016 is quashed. Accordingly, Additional Ground No. 1.1 raised by the Assessee vide Letter dated 15/08/2025 is allowed

ITA 575/COCH/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 Sept 2025AY 2015-16
Section 144Section 153CSection 15CSection 250Section 292B

plain reading of the aforesaid section, it is evident that in the instant case, so long as the notice under the correct section (142(1) of the IT Act) was issued, and the assessment was rightly done under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, the mention of wrong section ... frame assessment for the Assessment Year 2015-2016 under Section 153C of the Act. We note that in the present case notice under Section 142(1) of the Act was issued on 29/11/2016. Thereafter, Satisfaction Note was recorded on 17/10/2016. While the Assessing Officer has not disputed the aforesaid position

Kashi Nath Seth Sarraf Private Limited, Hardoi vs. ACIT, Sitapur

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

ITA 88/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow22 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 145(3)Section 234BSection 44Section 68

I.T.A. No.88/Lkw/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH 'B', LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA

Rohilkhand Educational Charitable Trust, Bareilly vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Bareilly

ITA 182/LKW/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow22 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S.H. Usmani, CIT DR
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 13(3)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80GSection 80G(5)

justified in completing assessment based on the facts prevailing at the time when he passed the order. Further, she noted that notices under section 142(1) had been given on numerous occasions and therefore, she did not find any merits in these grounds laid by the assessee. On the merits ... scrutiny under CASS and a notice under section 143(2) was duly served upon the assessee. Furthermore, in response to notices under section 142(1) of the Act, the assessee had furnished submissions and attended hearings. On perusal of the notice of demand issued under section 156, it was noted

Rohilkhand Educational Charitable Trust, Bareilly vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Bareilly

In the result, both appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 181/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow22 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.181 & 182/Lkw/2024 A.Ys.2017-18 & 2018-19 Rohilkhand Educational Vs. Dcit, Charitable Trust, Bareilly Central Circle, Bareilly Pan: Aaatr6902J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assesseeby: Sh. Rakesh Garg, Adv Revenue By: Sh. S.H. Usmani, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 14.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.09.2025 O R D E R Per Bench: [ These Two Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Lucknow Dated 19.03.2024 & 22.03.2024, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, For The A.Ys. 2017-18 & 2018-19, Dismissing The Appeals Of The Assessee Against Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “(1).That The Ld. Authorities Below Have Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Not Considering The Fact That In The Alleged Assessment Order, The Columns Of Name Of Assessee, Pan, Asst Year, Date Of Assessment & Section Under Which Passed, Are Blank. (2)That The Ld. Authorities Below Have Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Treating The Demand As Valid Which Was Not Computed On The Basis Of Orderthat May Not Be Termed To Be An Order Under Section 143(3). (3) That A Demand Of Tax As Computed In The Computation Sheet Is Without Jurisdiction Void-Ab-Inito & Is Liable To Be Annulled. (4) That The Ld. Authorities Below Have Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 736591857/-Comprising  Corpus Donation Aggregating To Rs 7,68,95,000/-, A.Ys. 2017-18 & 2018-19

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S.H. Usmani, CIT DR
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 13(3)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80GSection 80G(5)

justified in completing assessment based on the facts prevailing at the time when he passed the order. Further, she noted that notices under section 142(1) had been given on numerous occasions and therefore, she A.Ys. 2017-18 & 2018-19 did not find any merits in these grounds laid ... scrutiny under CASS and a notice under section 143(2) was duly served upon the assessee. Furthermore, in response to notices under section 142(1) of the Act, the assessee had furnished submissions and attended hearings. On perusal of the notice of demand issued under section 156, it was noted

Late Sh. Lakha Singh Through Legal Heir Hira Singh Dera Pyara Singh Barna Thanesar Kurukshetra, Kurukshetra vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-1 Aaykar Bhawan, Near Community Hall Sector-5, Kurukshetra Haryana, Kurukshetra

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

ITA 1151/CHANDI/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 Sept 2025AY 2012-2013

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

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च"ीगढ़ "ायपीठ “ए” , च"ीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “A”, CHANDIGARH HEARING

Shree Datta Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha, Sangli vs. ITO Ward-5, Sangli

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AY 2018-19 (ITA

ITA 626/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Sarang S. GudhateFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 56Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “ए” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA

Shree Datta Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha, Sangli vs. ITO Ward-5, Sangli

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AY 2018-19 (ITA

ITA 625/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Sarang S. GudhateFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 56Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “ए” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA

Sharada Electors Private Limited, Pune vs. PCIT, Pune-3, Pune

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

ITA 1432/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 263

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

Awez Wahab Shaikh, Sillod vs. The ITO, Ward 1(1), Aurangabad

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

ITA 1131/PUN/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Sept 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Tripathi
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1131/PUN/2025

Manicam Narayanan, Chennai vs. ACIT, Ncc-20(1), Chennai

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

ITA 1975/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Mr. V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 69A

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

Vilasben Purohit, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 42(1)(5), Mumbai

ITA 4879/MUM/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2016-17 Vilasben Purohit, Ito 42(1)(5), A 404, Snehal Tower, Sayar Pada, Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Borivali, Vs. Complex, Mumbai-400066. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aqqpp 6847 J Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Ashish Thakurdesai
Section 148Section 148ASection 234ASection 234BSection 69

other sources of ₹4,01,250/-. 12.04.2023 declaring income from other sources of 12.04.2023 declaring income from other sources of Thereafter, notice under section 142(1) of the Act was issued calling Thereafter, notice under section 142(1) of the Act was issued calling Thereafter, notice under section 142(1

Yashodhan Shanti Realtors, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Central Circle 2(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4159/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)Section 250Section 68

assessee has recorded the impugned transaction or not. We further notice that though the Enterprises, the AO while issuing the notice under section 142(1) calling for details has stated that on verification of bank statements of the assessee it is found that there is transaction undertaken by the assessee ... combined perusal of the reasons recorded as extracted in the earlier part of this order and the details called for through notice under section 142(1) it is clear that the AO reopened the assessment on a different ground whereas the reassessment proceedings are conducted by calling for details completely

Jayantilal Rajmal Seth, Mumbai vs. DCIT-CC-4(3), Mumbai

ITA 3260/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2018-19 Jayantilal Rajmal Seth, Dcit-Cc-4(3), A-3, Saibaba Shopping Centre, Bkc, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai Central, Vs. Mumbai-400008. Pan No. Agepj 0499 E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Vivek Perampurna, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Mr. Jayant Bhat
Section 139(5)Section 148Section 263

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI RAJ