← 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)

Ramrao Adik Education Society, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Incometax Central Circle 7(1), Mumbai

Accordingly. The ground raised by the revenue is partly allowed for

ITA 1513/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal, CA
Section 12ASection 132Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 250Section 68Section 9

these grounds are dismissed as not pressed. Addition towards unaccounted capitation fees – Assessee's Ground No.3 16. The AO vide notice issued under section 142(1) call on the assessee to explain the seized documents and statements on record of Shri Sunil Gaikwad and why the additions to the extent

Ramrao Adik Education Society, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 7(1), Mumbai

Accordingly. The ground raised by the revenue is partly allowed for

ITA 1511/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Section 12ASection 132Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 250Section 4Section 68

these grounds are dismissed as not pressed. Addition towards unaccounted capitation fees – Assessee's Ground No.3 16. The AO vide notice issued under section 142(1) call on the assessee to explain the seized documents and statements on record of Shri Sunil Gaikwad and why the additions to the extent

Ramrao Adik Education Society, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 7(1), Mumbai

Accordingly. The ground raised by the revenue is partly allowed for

ITA 1510/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Section 11Section 12ASection 132Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 250Section 4Section 68

these grounds are dismissed as not pressed. Addition towards unaccounted capitation fees – Assessee's Ground No.3 16. The AO vide notice issued under section 142(1) call on the assessee to explain the seized documents and statements on record of Shri Sunil Gaikwad and why the additions to the extent

Ramrao Adik Education Society, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 7(1), Mumbai

Accordingly. The ground raised by the revenue is partly allowed for

ITA 1509/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Section 12ASection 132Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 250Section 68Section 9

these grounds are dismissed as not pressed. Addition towards unaccounted capitation fees – Assessee's Ground No.3 16. The AO vide notice issued under section 142(1) call on the assessee to explain the seized documents and statements on record of Shri Sunil Gaikwad and why the additions to the extent

Ranjana Sanjay Tiwari, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer -(3), Palghar

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4239/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Girish Agrawalranjana Tiwari, Tiwari Compound, Baba Ki Lila Bhawan, Bungalow No.1, Kacheri Road Palghar, Mumbai - 401404 ............... Appellant Pan : Afypt8103L V/S Income Tax Officer – (3), ……………… Respondent Bidco Road Palghar, Mumbai - 401404 Assessee By : Shri Poojan Mehta Revenue By : Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri Poojan MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, Sr.DR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

abnormal increase in cash deposits during the demonetisation period compared to the pre-demonetisation period. Accordingly, statutory notices under section 143(2) and section 142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee. During the assessment proceedings, ongoing through the bank statements of the assessee

Vijay Chanabasayya Vastrad, Belagavi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 5, Belagavi

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

ITA 174/PAN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji03 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. Nos.174/Pan/2025 (A.Y. 2017-18) Vijay Channabasayya Vastrad, Vs Ito-Ward-5, Mahantesh Nagar, Civil Hospital Road, . Near Nagappa Temple, Belagavi-590001. Ramdurg, Karnataka. Belagavi-591123, Karnataka. Pan/Gir No.Akvpv1915G (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)

Section 144

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PANAJI BENCH PANAJI BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI G D PADMAHSHALI

Satya Enterprises, Bilaspur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Bilaspur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 396/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur03 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.396/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Satya Enterprises Ward No.3, Shanti Nagar, Bilaspur (C.G.)-495 001 Pan: Adcfs1415L .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Bilaspur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 292B

assessment year 2000-01. However, the assessee did not file a return and therefore a notice was issued to it under section 142(1) of the Act. Pursuant thereto, the assessee appeared before the Assessing Officer and stated that the original 5 Satya Enterprises Vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Bilaspur ... account of failure on the part of an Assessee to comply with all terms of a notice issued under Section 142(1) of the Act or failure to comply with directions issued under Section 142(A) of the Act - and issuance of notice under Section

Ms Aditya Plastic, Rajkot vs. The Income Tax Officer, NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 186/RJT/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot03 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.185 & 186/Rjt/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2013-14) बनाम/ M/S Aditya Plastic The Income Tax Officer Umiya Industrial Building Ward-3(1)(1) Vs. Near New Nehru Nagar Rajkot -360 001 Main Road, Dhebar Road Rajkot – 360 004 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aajfa 4558 In (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) .. (""थ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri D.M. Rindani, Ld.Ar Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld.Sr.Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing 05/06/2025 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 03/09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench-: Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Same Assessee Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2013-14 Are Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cit(A)-[(In Short “Ld.Cit(A)”] Vide Order Dated 01/02/2024, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Dated 29/09/2021Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) U/S. 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, “The Act”) Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2013-14. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows:

For Appellant: Shri D.M. Rindani, Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld.Sr.DR
Section 119Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण,राजकोट"ायपीठ,राजकोट। IN THE INCOMETAXAPPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH: RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI DINESH

Ms Aditya Plastic, Rajkot vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1)(1), Rajkot-

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 185/RJT/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot03 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.185 & 186/Rjt/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2013-14) बनाम/ M/S Aditya Plastic The Income Tax Officer Umiya Industrial Building Ward-3(1)(1) Vs. Near New Nehru Nagar Rajkot -360 001 Main Road, Dhebar Road Rajkot – 360 004 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aajfa 4558 In (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) .. (""थ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri D.M. Rindani, Ld.Ar Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld.Sr.Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing 05/06/2025 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 03/09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench-: Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Same Assessee Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2013-14 Are Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cit(A)-[(In Short “Ld.Cit(A)”] Vide Order Dated 01/02/2024, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Dated 29/09/2021Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) U/S. 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, “The Act”) Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2013-14. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows:

For Appellant: Shri D.M. Rindani, Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld.Sr.DR
Section 119Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण,राजकोट"ायपीठ,राजकोट। IN THE INCOMETAXAPPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH: RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI DINESH

Promila Vinodkumar Bhatia, Dadra and Nagar Haveli vs. Ld. ITO, Ward - 2, Vapi

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

ITA 203/SRT/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat03 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.203/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Hybrid Hearing) Promila Vinodkumar Bhatia Vs. Ito, R-102, Pramukh Vihar Phase-5, Ward – 2, Naroli Road, Silvassa, Dadra & Vapi Nagar Haveli-396 230 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Adzpg2322F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 03/09/2025

Section 10(38)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 148Section 250

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI T. R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH

Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad., Vejalpur vs. Gopalbhai Umarbhai Bharavad, Viramgam

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed

ITA 19/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: The Final Hearing Of The Appeal.”

For Appellant: Shri Arvind Kumbhare, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri Hem Chhajed, AR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250Section 251(1)(a)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Nadiad vs. Omprakash Devilal Shah, Nadiad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1547/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Piyush Panchal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr. D.R
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69C

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “B” BENCH Before Dr. BRR Kumar, Vice President And Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member

Acharya Shri Anand Rishiji Jain Shraman Sanghiya Trust, Ahmednagar vs. CIT Exemption, Pune

In the result, both the appeals filed by the appellant trust are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 320/PUN/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Sept 2025

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Ms.Payal RathiFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G

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

Acharya Shri Anand Rishiji Jain Shraman Sanghiya Trust, Ahmednagar vs. CIT, Exemption, Pune

In the result, both the appeals filed by the appellant trust are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 319/PUN/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Sept 2025

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Ms.Payal RathiFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G

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

M/S Lorgan Lifestyle Ltd., Pune vs. ITO, Ward14(4), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed as per terms indicated above

ITA 215/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms.Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri B S RajpurohitFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 143(3)Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “A”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS.ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Shri Sevagiri Maharaj Deosthan, Satara vs. Income Tax Officer - Exemption Ward 1(1), Pune

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

ITA 1348/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

For Appellant: Shri Kaushal JainFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhivare
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1348/PUN/2025

Abhishek Builders and Developers, Pune vs. ACIT Circle Panvel, Navi Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 2726/PUN/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Amol khairnar
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80I

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

Talluri Venkata Ramana, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-15(1), Hyderabad

ITA 991/HYD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Us:

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144

Talluri Venkata Ramana assessee was selected for “limited scrutiny” under CASS for verifying “large agricultural income”. 3. As the notices issued under Section 142(1) of the Act by the A.O. could not be served/responded by the assessee, therefore, the A.O. issued summons to him under Section ... However, the assessee did not respond to the summons issued under Section 131 of the Act. Thereafter, the A.O. issued notice under Section 142(1) of the Act, dated 19.08.2016, wherein the assessee was intimated that on his failure to present the case, the assessment will be framed

Gangadhar Agarwal, Nizamabad vs. ITO., Ward-1, Nizamabad

ITA 697/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Sept 2025AY 2017-18
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 44A

well as finished goods”. 3. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee in compliance to the notice issued by the A.O. under Section 142(1) of the Act, dated 11.10.2019, filed before him a detailed “trading account" along with quantitative particulars of the items traded

Navodaya Mutually Aided Co-Operative Thrift Society Limited, Udamgadda vs. ITO., Ward-8(2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 334/HYD/2025[AY 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Sept 2025

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.334/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2017-18) M/S. Navodaya Mutually Aided Co- Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ward-8(2), Hyderabad. Operative Thrift Society Ltd., Udamgadda. Pan: Aacan0471H (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri Abhiroop Bhargav, C.A. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Gurpreet Singh, Sr-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 26/08/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 03/09/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By M/S. Navodaya Mutually Aided Co- Operative Thrift Society Ltd. (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”), Dated 11.12.2024 For The A.Y. 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

For Appellant: Shri Abhiroop Bhargav, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gurpreet Singh, SR-DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

bank account with SBI during the demonetisation period i.e., from 09.11.2016 to 30.12.2016. Accordingly, the Ld. AO issued a notice under section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) on 30.01.2018, calling upon the assessee to file its return of income. However, the assessee neither ITA No.334/Hyd/2025