← 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)

Ssgr Hospital and Research Centre Private Limited, Haldwani vs. DCIT/ACIT, Central Circle, Haldwani

In the result, appeals of the Assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 72/DDN/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun17 Sept 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 69B

1 ITA No. 70, 71, 72, 73 & 41/DDN/2025 SSGR Hospital and Research Centre Vs. DCIT/ACIT IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE

Ssgr Hospital and Research Centre Private Limited, Haldwani vs. DCIT/ACIT, Central Circle, Haldwani

In the result, appeals of the Assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 71/DDN/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun17 Sept 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 69B

1 ITA No. 70, 71, 72, 73 & 41/DDN/2025 SSGR Hospital and Research Centre Vs. DCIT/ACIT IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE

Ssgr Hospital and Research Centre Private Limited, Haldwani vs. DCIT/ACIT, Cental Circle, Haldwani

In the result, appeals of the Assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 70/DDN/2025[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun17 Sept 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 69B

1 ITA No. 70, 71, 72, 73 & 41/DDN/2025 SSGR Hospital and Research Centre Vs. DCIT/ACIT IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE

Ssgr Hospital & Research Centre Private Limited, Haldwani vs. Dc/ACIT, Central Cirlce, Haldwani

In the result, appeals of the Assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 41/DDN/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun17 Sept 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 69B

1 ITA No. 70, 71, 72, 73 & 41/DDN/2025 SSGR Hospital and Research Centre Vs. DCIT/ACIT IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE

Gufaran, Bulandshahr vs. ITO Ward 4(1)(3), Aligarh

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

ITA 178/AGR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra17 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Gufaran, Vs. Ito, 567, Mohalla Garhi, Ward-4(1), Chaundherea, District- Aligarh Bulandshahr, Up (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Apjpg1383E Assessee By : Shri Pankaj Garh, Adv Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/09/2025

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj Garh, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 69A

specified bank notes during the demonetization period in the bank account. Accordingly, a notice under section 142(1) of the Act was issued to the Assessee on 8-3-2018 calling for return of income for assessment year 2017-18. But no income tax return was filed by the Assessee ... relevant assessment year even in response to notice under section 142(1) of the Act. The Assessee was confronted by the Learned AO to explain the source of cash deposits made in specified bank notes during the demonetization period in the bank account. In response to that, the Assessee explained

Jay Singh, Morena vs. ITO-1, Morena

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

ITA 117/AGR/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Agra17 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Jay Singh, Vs. Ito, Gram Khaneta, Maharajpur, Ward-1, Morena, Madhya Pradesh Morena (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Cfwps1529H

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 250Section 250(6)Section 69A

which stood served upon the assessee on 5-4-2017. In the reassessment proceedings, notice under section 142(1) of the Act stood issued to the assessee. Assessee, being an uneducated person and having no knowledge of operating the computer and income tax portal could not make compliance

Jagdish Savant, Belgaum vs. Income Tax Officer, Belgaum

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

ITA 227/PAN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji17 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalei T A. Nos.227/Pan/2025 (A.Y. 2017-18 ) Jagdish Shambhu Savant, Vs Ito-Ward-4, 102,Kaivalya Residency, Feroj Khimjibhai Cpx, . Budhwar Peth, Civil Hospital Road Belagavi-590006, Belagavi-590001. Karnataka. Karnataka. Pan/Gir No. Assps9453P (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)

Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH PANAJI BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I T A. Nos.227/PAN/2025

The Daivadnya Co-Operative Credit Society Limited, Karwar vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 226/PAN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji17 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalei T A. Nos. 226/Pan/2025 (A.Y. 2014-15 ) The Daivadnya Cooperative Vs I T O, Credit Society Limited, National E Assessment . 1,Near Busstand, Centre, Maruti Galli, Delhi. Karwar-581301, . Uttara Kannada, Karnataka. Pan .No.Aaaad2169G (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)

Section 80P

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC”BENCH PANAJI BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I T A. Nos

Bharat Hanchinale, Chikodi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Nippani

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

ITA 219/PAN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji17 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalei T A. Nos. 219/Pan/2025 (A.Y.2020-21) Bharat Hanchinale, Vs National Faceless 1081,Hanabar Galli, Assessment Centre, . Khadaklat, Chikodi, New Delhi-110003. Belgaum-591228. Karnataka. Pan/Gir No. Aojph8149C (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)

Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH PANAJI BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I T A. Nos

Radheshyam Paper Mills Private Limited, Lilapar Road, Lilapar vs. PCIT-Rajkot-1, Income Taxdepartment, Office of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Aaykar Bhavan Ring Road Race Course Rajkot

In the result, appeal OF the assessee is allowed

ITA 243/RJT/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot17 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI (Accountant Member), SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Raiyani, Ld.A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Pallavi, Ld.CIT-D.R
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 263Section 56Section 69Section 69B

assessee also submitted before the learned PCIT that assessing officer has conducted sufficient enquiry to examine such excess stock by issuing notice under section 142(1) of the Act, and in response to notice under section 142(1) of the Act, the assessee submitted its reply before the assessing officer ... ld.Counsel also submitted that assessing officer has conducted sufficient enquiry to examine such excess stock by issuing notice under section 142(1) of the Act, and in response to notice under section 142(1) of the Act, the assessee submitted its reply before the assessing officer with documentary evidences. Therefore

Surya Singhal, Kota vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 928/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Sept 2025AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT-DR
Section 115BSection 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR डा० एस. सीतालक्ष्मी, न्यायिक

Mahesh Chandra Agrawal, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Jaipur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are disposed of, for statistical purposes

ITA 555/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Mangla, CA (Thru: VC)For Respondent: Smt. Anita Rinesh,JCIT-DR
Section 131Section 139(1)Section 144Section 153ASection 292CSection 69

आयकरअपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुरन्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR JhjkBkSM+ deys'kt;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk

Mahesh Chandra Agrawal, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Jaipur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are disposed of, for statistical purposes

ITA 554/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Mangla, CA (Thru: VC)For Respondent: Smt. Anita Rinesh,JCIT-DR
Section 131Section 139(1)Section 144Section 153ASection 292CSection 69

आयकरअपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुरन्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR JhjkBkSM+ deys'kt;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk

J.K.V. Stonex, Kishangarh vs. Income Tax Officer, Kishangarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 542/JPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: ShriSandeep Jhanwar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT-DR
Section 147Section 68

आयकरअपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुरन्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,’’B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh]U;kf

Baglan Prathmik Shikshak Sahkari Patsanstha Maryadit, Nampur vs. Income Tax Officer, Malegaon

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

ITA 358/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.358/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Baglan Prathmik Shikshak Vs. Ito, Ward-2, Malegaon. Sahkari Patsanstha Maryadit, Nampur, Baglan, Nashik- 423204. Pan : Aadab1392C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Pramod Shingte Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 05.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.09.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 13.12.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Ld. Ao Erred In Making Various Additions Other Than The Reasons For Which The Case Was Reopened, I.E. Cash Deposited In Bank During Demonetization Period, As He Was Satisfied With Explanation Offered During The Course Of Reassessment Proceedings, Other Additions Are Not Permissible As Per The Provisions Of Section 147, In View Of The Judgment Of Hon'Ble Jurisdictional High Court In The Case Of Cit Vs. Jet Airways (1) Ltd. 331 Itr 236 (Bom).

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 80ASection 80A(5)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

Subhash Hanumanthappa, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-6(4), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1325/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A), and such appeal has been on 19-02-2020. In Form No. 35 filed by the assessee, it was stated that the date of service of the order was on 08-02-2020. During the course of appellate proceedings, the Ld. CIT(A) issued various notices fixing the case for hearing. However, there was no response from the assessee. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) disposed of the appeal filed by the assessee on the ground that the appeal has been filed with a delay of 60 days without any petition for cond

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 226(3)

आयकर अपीलीय न्यायाधिकरण में, हैदराबाद ‘ए’ बेंच, हैदराबाद IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ A ‘ Bench, Hyderabad श्री मंजूनाथ

Kanaka Chalam Volety, California vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-12(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1312/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 274Section 275

directed to reconsider the issue of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act for non-compliance to the notice issued under Section 142(1) of the Act, after the outcome of the appeal filed by the assessee before the First Appellate Authority. 9. In the result, the appeal

ITO, Kolkata vs. Ajit Kumar Minda, Kolkata

ITA 2668/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manunatha G & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaι.Τ.Α. No.2668/Kol/2024

Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69C

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, कोलकाता पीठ, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH KOLKATA Before Shri Manunatha G, Accountant

Shree Jain Swethambar Murti Pujak Sangh, Chennai vs. ITO, Exemptions Ward-4, Chennai

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

ITA 1994/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1994/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2019-20 M/S. Shree Jain Swethambar The Income Tax Officer, Murti Pujak Sangh, Vs. Exemptions Ward 4, 55, Thirumalai Raja Puram, Chennai. Avadi, Chennai – 600 054. Pan: Aagts 7268G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Hitesh, Advocate For Shri D. Anand, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17.09.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17.09.2025

For Appellant: Shri Hitesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

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

Puneet Kulthia, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-14, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1154/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Suman Malik, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 153Section 153ASection 153DSection 154

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