← 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)

Subhash Samudayak Sahakari Shetki Sangh Ltd., Pune vs. ITO Ward 14(5), Pune

In the result, ITA No.160/PUN/2025 is allowed and ITA

ITA 160/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 270ASection 80P

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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Sujai Anand Reddy, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 617/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.617/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Sujai Anand Reddy, No. 4, 10Th Street, Nandanam, Income Tax, Central Circle 2(3), Chennai 600 035. Chennai. [Pan: Aakps5124P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri K. Mohan Das, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.07.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19.08.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 11.12.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 19, Chennai, For The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. The Appellant-Revenue Raised 6 Grounds Of Which, The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Deleting The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

For Appellant: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CITFor Respondent: Shri K. Mohan Das, CA
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69

assessee reiterated the same amount which was declared in the original return of income. The Assessing Officer issued notices under section 142(1) and 143(2) of the Act. The assessee was represented by his authorized representative before the Assessing Officer and filed replies on various dates. On an examination

Mac Charities, Chennai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), New Delhi

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

ITA 2950/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2950/Chny/2024 िनधा9रण वष9 /Assessment Year: 2020-21 Mac Charities, The Income Tax Officer, Mac Ich Building, Vhs Campus, Vs. Dlc-Ca-(201)(1), Ttti Post, Tharamani, Chennai. Chennai – 600 113. [Pan: Aaatm 0483F]

For Appellant: Shri R.Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri E.Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 1lSection 2(15)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी एबी टी. वक", "ाियक

Ve Commercial Vehicles Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-5, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1100/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 115Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 35

ITA Nos.1100, 1101 & 1411/Del/2023 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “I” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

Jharkhand Bhawan Evam Anay Sanirman Karmkar Kalyan Board, Ranchi vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Ranchi

In the result, these appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 325/RAN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi18 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Before Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 194ASection 272A(1)(d)

272A(1)(d) of the Act was also initiated by the Assessing Officer on 01/02/2023 for non-compliance to the notice issued under Section 142(1) of the Act dated 20/10/2022 and 15/12/2022. The Assessing Officer, therefore, imposed a penalty of ₹ 20,000/- under Section 272A(1

Jharkhand Bhawan Evam Anay Sanirman Karmkar Kalyan Board, Ranchi vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Ranchi

In the result, these appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 324/RAN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi18 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Before Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 194ASection 272A(1)(d)

272A(1)(d) of the Act was also initiated by the Assessing Officer on 01/02/2023 for non-compliance to the notice issued under Section 142(1) of the Act dated 20/10/2022 and 15/12/2022. The Assessing Officer, therefore, imposed a penalty of ₹ 20,000/- under Section 272A(1

Jharkhand Bhawan Evam Anay Sanirman Karmkar Kalyan Board, Ranchi vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Ranchi

In the result, these appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 323/RAN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi18 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Before Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 194ASection 272A(1)(d)

272A(1)(d) of the Act was also initiated by the Assessing Officer on 01/02/2023 for non-compliance to the notice issued under Section 142(1) of the Act dated 20/10/2022 and 15/12/2022. The Assessing Officer, therefore, imposed a penalty of ₹ 20,000/- under Section 272A(1

Jharkhand Bhawan Evam Anay Sanirman Karmkar Kalyan Board, Ranchi vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Ranchi

In the result, these appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 322/RAN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi18 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Before Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 194ASection 272A(1)(d)

272A(1)(d) of the Act was also initiated by the Assessing Officer on 01/02/2023 for non-compliance to the notice issued under Section 142(1) of the Act dated 20/10/2022 and 15/12/2022. The Assessing Officer, therefore, imposed a penalty of ₹ 20,000/- under Section 272A(1

Jharkhand Bhawan Evam Anay Sanirman Karmkar Kalyan Board, Ranchi vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Ranchi

In the result, these appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 321/RAN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi18 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Before Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 194ASection 272A(1)(d)

272A(1)(d) of the Act was also initiated by the Assessing Officer on 01/02/2023 for non-compliance to the notice issued under Section 142(1) of the Act dated 20/10/2022 and 15/12/2022. The Assessing Officer, therefore, imposed a penalty of ₹ 20,000/- under Section 272A(1

Tariq Ahmad Mir S/O Mohad Abdulla Mir Tariq General Store Gund Ramban Banihal, Banihal Ramban vs. Income Tax Officer Ward Udhampur 103 Ward No 10 Dhar Road Udhampur, Udhampur

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

ITA 92/ASR/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar18 Aug 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. No. 92/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. UDAYAN DASGUPTA

Zaffer Ullah Shah S/O Sh Abdul Gani Shah Khokhar Complex Distt Police Line Street Doda 182201, Distt Doda vs. Income Tax Office Ward 2(4) Udhampur 103-Ward 10 Dhar Road Udhampur, Udhampur

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

ITA 87/ASR/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar18 Aug 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. No. 87/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 249Section 249(4)Section 250Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. UDAYAN DASGUPTA

Sukhmeet Kaur, Amritsar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-4(5), Amritsar

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

ITA 714/ASR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar18 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. No. 714/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. UDAYAN DASGUPTA

Shri Khurshid Ahmad Bazaz, Srinagar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Srinagar

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

ITA 526/ASR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar18 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. No. 526/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. UDAYAN DASGUPTA

Navanirman Multipurpose Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd, Belagavi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2, Belagavi

ITA 116/PAN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji18 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 116/Pan/2025 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Navanirman Multipurpose Co-Op. Credit Society Ltd., Laxmi Nagar, Hindalaga, Dist. Belagavi.-591108 Pan : Aacan0420G . . . . . . . Appellant V/S The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Belagavi. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Mr Pramod Vaidya [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Ms Rijjula Uniyal [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 07/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 18/08/2025 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; By Captioned Appeal The Assessee Impugns Din & Order 1074658686(1) Dt. 18/03/2025 Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. Nfac/Cit(A)’ Hereinafter] U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’ Hereinafter] Which In Turn Arisen Out Of Order Of Assessment Dt. 15/02/2024 Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Act By National Faceless E- Asstt Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. Ao’ Hereinafter] Anent To Assessment Year 2016-17 [‘Ay’ Hereinafter].

For Appellant: Mr Pramod Vaidya [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Ms Rijjula Uniyal [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 80A(5)Section 80P(2)

were admittedly filed after the dates prescribed under sections 139(1) and 139(4) or in the notices issued under section 142(1) and section 148, the returns were indeed non- est and could not have been acted upon by the Assessing Officer even though they were filed before ... were admittedly filed after the dates prescribed under sections 139(1) and 139(4) or in the notices issued under section 142(1) and section 148, the returns were indeed non-est and could not have been acted upon by the Assessing Officer even though they were filed before

Jigar Industries, Jamwadi vs. Income Tax Officer, Rajkot

In the result, question is decided against the Revenue

ITA 405/RJT/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot18 Aug 2025AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri R.B. Shah, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld.Sr-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, राजकोटन्यायपीठ, राजकोट। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT

Pashankar Auto Wheels Pvt Ltd, Pune vs. CIT(A) Circle-4, Pune

ITA 1546/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: S/Shri Bheek Singh Rajpurohit and Abhijeet JainFor Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastva, Addl.CIT
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 148Section 148ASection 194Section 194ISection 24

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS. ASTHA

India Japan Lighting Private Limited, Chennai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 4, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1427/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1427/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 V. M/S. India Japan Lighting Pvt. Ltd., The Pcit-4, No.1, Tiruvallur High Road, Chennai. Puduchatram B.O., Thirumazhisai, Tiruvallur-600 124. [Pan: Aaaci 2673 L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी मनु कुमार िग"र

Shri Phoolcahnd Lalchand Bafna, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 3(2), Thane

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

ITA 2030/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Ms. Padmavathy S(Physical Hearing)

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 254(1)Section 69A

sale value of two- wheelers was issued directly by various dealers and role of assessee was of mediator. In response to notice under section 142(1), the assessee could not furnish return of income. Though, the assessee furnished complete 2 Shri Phookchand Lalchand Bafna information required for assessment, as initial

Mahendra Singh Jain, Ghaziabad vs. ITO Ward-1(4), Ghaziabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3848/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Bleasstt. Year : 2012-13 Mahendra Singh Jain, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ch. No. 206-207, Ansal Satyam, Ward 1(4), Ghaziabad Rdc, Rajnagar, Ghaziabad (Pan: Afhpj7049A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Akhilesh Kumar, Adv. & Shri Govil Aggarwal, Ca Respondent By : Shri Sangeet Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06.08.2025 Order Per Mahavir Singh, Vp : This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 17.2.2025 Passed By The Addl./Jcit(A), Patnan For Ay 2012-13 On The Following Grounds:- 1. Because, The Order Of The Ld. Lower Authority Is Bad In Law & Against The Facts & Circumstance Of The Case. 2. Because, The Cit(A) Grossly Erred In Sustaining The Impugned Proceeding & Assessment Order Whereby All The Notices U/S. 142(1)/144 & Impugned Order Were Issued In The Name Of Deceased Person Against The Provisions Of Section 159 Of The Act Hence, The Order Is Null & Void.

For Appellant: Shri Akhilesh Kumar, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Sangeet Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 159

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT Asstt

Komal Adlakha, Gurugram vs. ITO, Ward 2(2), Gurugram

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3652/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2019-20 Vs. Ito, Komal Adlakha, A06, Parsvnath Green Ville, Ward-2(2), Sohna Road, Gurgaon Gurgaon Pan: Autpa5180C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Mahfuzur Rahman, Ca Department By Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr

Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)

races. The Ld. Assessing Officer ("AO") served notice under section 143(2) upon the assessee on 22.09.2019 followed by issue of notice under section 142(1) of the Act on 23.11.2020. The Ld. AO completed the assessment on 22.01.2021 under section 143(3) r.w. section ... case of the assessee. 6.1 Elaborating the above contentions, the Ld. AR pointed out that in notice under section 142(1) of the Act dated 23.11.2020 (copy at Paper Book page 1-2), the Ld. AO required the assessee to furnish documentary evidence in support of claim that the amount