← 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)

Ramachandra Naveen, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(1), Bengaluru

ITA 2152/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Muthu Shankar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 131Section 132(4)Section 153A

admitted the same in the statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act. During the course of assessment proceedings, a notice under section 142(1) of the Act dated 18.11.2019 asking to explain whether cash paid outside the books are disclosed in the return of income filed under section ... points in the statement under section 132(4) of the Act as above. In this regard, a show cause notice was issued under section 142(1) of the Act on 18.11.2019 asking to explain whether reward points are offered in the return of income filed under section 153A

Ramachandra Naveen, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Central Cirlce-1(1), Benglauru

ITA 2151/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Muthu Shankar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 131Section 132(4)Section 153A

admitted the same in the statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act. During the course of assessment proceedings, a notice under section 142(1) of the Act dated 18.11.2019 asking to explain whether cash paid outside the books are disclosed in the return of income filed under section ... points in the statement under section 132(4) of the Act as above. In this regard, a show cause notice was issued under section 142(1) of the Act on 18.11.2019 asking to explain whether reward points are offered in the return of income filed under section 153A

Sri Ramachandra Naveen, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(1), Bengaluru

ITA 2150/BANG/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Muthu Shankar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 131Section 132(4)Section 153A

admitted the same in the statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act. During the course of assessment proceedings, a notice under section 142(1) of the Act dated 18.11.2019 asking to explain whether cash paid outside the books are disclosed in the return of income filed under section ... points in the statement under section 132(4) of the Act as above. In this regard, a show cause notice was issued under section 142(1) of the Act on 18.11.2019 asking to explain whether reward points are offered in the return of income filed under section 153A

Sri. Ramachandra Naveen, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Central Cirlce-1(1), Bangalore

ITA 2149/BANG/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Muthu Shankar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 131Section 132(4)Section 153A

admitted the same in the statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act. During the course of assessment proceedings, a notice under section 142(1) of the Act dated 18.11.2019 asking to explain whether cash paid outside the books are disclosed in the return of income filed under section ... points in the statement under section 132(4) of the Act as above. In this regard, a show cause notice was issued under section 142(1) of the Act on 18.11.2019 asking to explain whether reward points are offered in the return of income filed under section 153A

Smt. Sharada, Legal Heir of Late Shri. Muttegere Javaregowda Appaji., Shimoga vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1 (4)., Queens Road, Bengaluru

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

ITA 2098/BANG/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Sept 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2020-21 Smt. Sharada, Vs. Dcit, Legal Heir Of Late Shri. Muttegere Central Circle – 1(4), Javaregowda Appaji, Bangalore. Jq 1, New Town, Bhardravathi, Shimoga, Bhadravathi H.O 577 301, Karnataka. Pan : Apkpa 7777 B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Balram R Rao, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Subramanian S, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 19.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.09.2025

For Appellant: Shri. Balram R Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 132oSection 142(1)Section 153C

lakh was found and seized from all these 3 persons’ premises. Pursuant to search conducted, the case was centralized. Accordingly, a notice under section 142(1) of the Act was issued on 04.06.2021 in the name of Appaji Gowda. Then wife of Appaji Gowda Smt. Sharada filed letter ... income for Assessment Year 2020-21 within 15 days. However there was no compliance. Various details were called for vide notice under section 142(1) of the Act dated 20.12.2022 but there was no response. Subsequently, several notices and opportunities were given to the assessee to file the return

Azb and Partner, Mumbai vs. PCIT-8, Mumbai

ITA 4105/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar & Shri VinayakFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav (CIT-DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 195Section 263

contended that the entire details in this regard were duly filed before the Ld. AO in response to notice issued under section 142(1) dated 12/11/2021. The said notice specifically called for details in Point No. 6 regarding “Deduction of tax in foreign remittances” under the heads “Foreign Outward Remittance ... deducted by the assessee. On perusal of the record, we find that during the assessment proceedings, in compliance with the notice issued under section 142(1), the assessee had furnished complete details of the foreign remittances, along with the reasons for non-deduction of TDS and the acknowledgement numbers

Township Real Estate Developers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -6, Mumbai

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 3303/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankartownship Real Estate V/S. Principal Commissioner Of Developers Private Limited, बनाम Income Tax– 6, Room No. C-62, Vibgyor Tower, Bandra 501, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Kurla Complex, Bandra - East, Bhawan, Maharishi Karve Mumbai –400 051, Maharashtra Road, Mumbai–400020, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aabct7356E Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Nishith Khatri, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, (CIT-DR)
Section 135Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 80G

discussion about the issue identified by ld. Pr. CIT while exercising his jurisdiction under section 263. However, on perusal of notices under section 142(1) dated 8.06.2022, we find that assessing officer sought explanation on various issues including on the deduction under section 80G along with supporting documents. The assessee

M/S Enam Asset Management Company Private Limited, Mumbai vs. PCIT-3, Mumbai

In the result, grounds of

ITA 2756/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Dharan Gandhi,ARFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, (Sr. DR)
Section 135Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37Section 37(1)Section 80G

discussion about the issue identified by ld. Pr. CIT while exercising his jurisdiction under section 263. However, on perusal of notices under section 142(1) dated 8.06.2022, we find that assessing officer sought explanation on various issues including on the deduction Page | 12 ITA No. 2079/Mum/2025

Email Pharmaceuical Industries Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. PCIT-4, Mumbai

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

ITA 2079/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarm/S Emil Pharmaceutical V/S. Principal Commissioner Of Industries Pvt. Ltd. बनाम Income Tax-4 101, Mangalam, Kulupwadi Room No. 629, Aayakar Road, Borivali East, Mumbai Bhawan, Maharishi Karve –400101, Maharashtra Road, Mumbai–400020, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaace0922A Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Anil Thakrar, CA (Virtually appeared)For Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, (Sr. DR)
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80G

discussion about the issue identified by ld. Pr. CIT while exercising his jurisdiction under section 263. However, on perusal of notices under section 142(1) dated 8.06.2022, we find that assessing officer sought explanation on various issues including on the deduction under section 80G along with supporting documents. The assessee

Dharam Pal Singh, Bulandshahr vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(2)(1), Meerut

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

ITA 2993/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. M Balaganesh & Sh. Sudhir Kumar

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C”, DELHI BEFORE SH. M BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. SUDHIR KUMAR

Implex Infrastructure Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. ITO Ward-12(1), Delhi

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

ITA 2910/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Sh. M. Balaganesh & Sh. Sudhir Kumar

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69

ITA No. 2910/Del/2025 Implex Infrastructure Pvt.ltd. Delhi vs. ITO IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘C’, NEW DELHI

Usha Devi, Ghaziabad vs. ITO Ward 44(6), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1233/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2017-18] Usha Devi, Ito, 30B/78, West Punjabi Bagh, Ward-44(6), Delhi-110026, Delhi. Vs Delhi. Pan- Aafpa1096H Assessee Revenue

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, C: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BRAJESH

Suhir Finance and Chits Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-24(2), New Delhi

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 8767/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: the Assessing Officer but the Assessing Officer has not disposed of the above objections. Further he submitted that assessee has raised submissions before the ld. CIT (A) and ld. CIT (A) has not appreciated the submissions of the assessee and dismissed the grounds raised by the assessee.

For Appellant: Shri Vikash Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sahil Kumar Bansal, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 292B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESDIENT and SHRI S

ITO, Ward- 24(3), New Delhi vs. Suhir Finance and Chits Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 8656/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESDIENT, SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vikash Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sahil Kumar Bansal, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 292B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESDIENT and SHRI S

Meena Swarup, New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-3(1)(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2050/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2014-15] Mrs. Meena Swarup, Vs Dcit, 397, Mandakini Enclave, Circle-3(1)(2), New Delhi-110019. Intl. Tax., Pan-Amrps5792E New Delhi. Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri R.S.Ahuja, Ca & Shri P.S.Sodhi, Adv. Respondent By Shri Dheeraj Kumar Jain, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 01.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19.09.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am :

Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

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

Devenra Kumar Gupta, Rewa vs. ACIT, Circle Satna, Satna

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 38/JAB/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur18 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2017-18 Devendra Kumar Gupta V. Acit Circle Satna 17/304, Venkat Road, Ghoghar, Income Tax Office, Aaykar Rewa-486001. Bhawan, Civil Lines, Satna-485001. Pan: Ahapg6843Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Sapan Usrethe, Advocate. Respondent By: Shri N.M. Prasad, Sr.Dr-1 Date Of Hearing: 16 09 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 18 09 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Sapan Usrethe, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N.M. Prasad, Sr.DR-1
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JABALPUR BENCH “SMC”, JABALPUR BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT Assessment Year: 2017-18

Dhanya Kumar Jain, Jabalpur vs. ITO Ward 2(1), Jabalpur

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

ITA 173/JAB/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur18 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2017-18 Dhanya Kumar Jain V. Ito Ward-2(1) 2719, Nagpur Road, Garha, Income Tax Office, Annexe Tripuri Chowk, Jabalpur- Building, Nagrath Chowk, 482001. Jabalpur-482001. Pan:Awdpj1526D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rahul Bardia, Ca Respondent By: Shri Alok Bhura, Sr. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 17 09 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 18 09 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Bardia, CAFor Respondent: Shri Alok Bhura, Sr. CIT(DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JABALPUR BENCH “SMC”, JABALPUR BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT Assessment Year: 2017-18

Triyugi Narayan Dwiwedi, Rewa vs. Income Tax Officer - Ward - 1, Rewa

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 137/JAB/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur18 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2016-17 Triyugi Narayan Dwivedi V. Income Tax Officer Ward No.03, Bramhan Tola Ward-1 Dhari Khadda, Semariya Distt- Kothi Compound Becides Rewa-486001. Family Court, Rewa- 486001. Pan: Bhbpd4469B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Ms. Apoorva Garg, Ca Shri Kng Pillai, Advocate Respondent By: Shri N.M. Prasad, Sr.Dr-1 Date Of Hearing: 17 09 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 18 09 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Ms. Apoorva Garg, CAFor Respondent: Shri N.M. Prasad, Sr.DR-1
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 251Section 271(1)(b)Section 56Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JABALPUR BENCH “SMC”, JABALPUR BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT Assessment Year: 2016-17

Shri Pandmavati Minority Mahila Multi Co-Operative Society, Belagavi vs. Income Tax Department, Assessment Unit, Delhi

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

ITA 236/PAN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji18 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalei T A. No.236/Pan/2025 (A.Y. 2018-19 ) Shri.Pandmavati Minority Vs. I T O, Mahila Multi Cooperative National E Assessment Society Limited, Centre, At & Post Shamanewadi, Delhi. Tq Chikodi, Belagavi-591214, Karnataka. Pan .No.Aagts2171N (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)

Section 270A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH PANAJI BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I T A. No.236/PAN/2025

Allavuddin Ummarasab Hurakadli, Mapusa vs. Income Tax Officer, Panaji

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

ITA 229/PAN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji18 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalei T A. No.229/Pan/2025 (A.Y. 2016-17 ) Allavuddin Unmarasab Vs National Faceless Hurakadli, Assessment Centre, H,No.354, New Delhi-110003 Shetty Wada, Mapusa-403507, Goa.

Section 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH PANAJI BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I T A. No.229/PAN/2025