← 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)

Giju Purapadathil Mathai, Ernakulam vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Corp Ward 2(1), Kochi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 214/COCH/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin05 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year: 2016-17 Giju Purapadathil Mathai .......... Appellant 5-B Parambil Thara Corss Road, Ivory Heights Panampilly Nagar, Ernakulam 682036 [Pan: Ahopm6606R] Vs. Acit, Corporate Ward- 2(1), Kochi .......... Respondent Assessee By: Smt. Parvathy Ammal, Ca Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 09.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 05.08.2025

For Appellant: Smt. Parvathy Ammal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM AND SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JM Assessment

Smita Subhash Mehta, Ratnagiri vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward 1, Ratnagiri

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

ITA 1108/PUN/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Aug 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1108/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Smita Subhash Mehta, Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Ratnagiri. Pitruchaya, Teen Batti Naka, Khed, Ratnagiri- 415709. Pan : Ankpm7084P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Anup Bipin Shaha Revenue By : Shri Akhilesh Srivastva Date Of Hearing : 28.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.08.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.03.2025 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming & The Ld. Ao Erred In Making The Addition Of Rs.1,50,79,576/- Under Section 69A Of The Act & The Same Is Based On Surmise & Guesswork. The Addition Be Deleted & The Appellant Be Given Just & Due Relief. 2. On The Facts & The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming & The Ld. Ao Erred In Making The Addition Of Rs.1,50,79,576/- Under Section 69A Of The Act Without Considering The Appellant'S Response That The Deposits In The Impugned Account Are Already Accounted For In Her

For Appellant: Shri Anup Bipin ShahaFor Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastva
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69A

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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. K S Palanisamy, Erode

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

ITA 660/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George Kand Ms. S. Padmavathyआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.660/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 The Deputy Commissioner Of K.S. Palanisamy, Income Tax, Vs. Kuppagounden Valasu, Central Circle - 2(4), Avalpoondurai, Erode 638 115. Chennai. [Pan: Ajipp-8193-Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Y. Sridhar, F.C.A. सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23.07.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05.08.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per George George K: This Appeal At The Instance Of The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 19, Chennai Dated 31.12.2024, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2017-18. 2. The Solitary Issue Raised In The Appeal Is With Regard To Deletion Of Addition Made On Account Of Alleged Receipts From M/S. Srs Mining.

For Appellant: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CITFor Respondent: Shri Y. Sridhar, F.C.A
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 250Section 34

were recorded. Copies of the seized materials, extracts of satisfaction notes and sworn statement were provided to the assessee along with notice under section 142(1) of the Act dated 05.12.2022 along with questionnaire. In response to the notice under section 142(1) of the Act, the assessee submitted

Prakash Narayanan, Bengaluru vs. DCIT Circle 3(3)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 969/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Anoop Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Murali Mohan, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 90

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE – PRESIDENT AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL

Crystal Hatcheries Private Limited, Bangalore vs. ACIT Central Circle-1(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 257/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Ms. Pooja Maru, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Nishi Padma, Addl. CIT-DR

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE – PRESIDENT AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL

Crystal Hatcheries Private Limited, Bangalore vs. ACIT Central Circle-1(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 256/BANG/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Ms. Pooja Maru, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Nishi Padma, Addl. CIT-DR

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE – PRESIDENT AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL

Crystal Hatcheries Private Limited, Bangalore vs. ACIT Central Circle-1(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 255/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Ms. Pooja Maru, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Nishi Padma, Addl. CIT-DR

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE – PRESIDENT AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL

Crystal Hatcheries Private Limited, Bangalore vs. ACIT Central Circle-1(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 254/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Ms. Pooja Maru, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Nishi Padma, Addl. CIT-DR

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE – PRESIDENT AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL

Crystal Hatcheries Private Limited, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 253/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Ms. Pooja Maru, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Nishi Padma, Addl. CIT-DR

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE – PRESIDENT AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL

Crystal Hatcheries Private Limited, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 252/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Ms. Pooja Maru, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Nishi Padma, Addl. CIT-DR

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE – PRESIDENT AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL

Crystal Hatcheries Private Limited, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Central Cirlce-1(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 251/BANG/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Ms. Pooja Maru, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Nishi Padma, Addl. CIT-DR

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE – PRESIDENT AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL

Alur Gopala Reddy, Bellary vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 &Tps, Bellary

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

ITA 1010/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Ms. Sowmya Murugesan, BA, LLBFor Respondent: Shri Balusamy N, JCIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 54F

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL

Swamy Holagundi, Huvina Hadagali vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Hospet

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

ITA 1767/BANG/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Aug 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2018-19 Swamy Holagundi Prop: Raviteja Traders 7C/10, 3Rd Ward Ito Bangarappanagar Vs. Ward-1 & Tps Karnataka 583 219 Hospet Pan: Dwjps7047P Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri V. Srinivasan, Advocate, A.R Respondent By : Sri Subramanian S., Jcit D.R. Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.08.2025 O R D E R Per Keshav Dubey: This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Dated 19.07.2024Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2-24-25/1066829871(1) Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: -

For Appellant: Sri V. Srinivasan, Advocate, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Subramanian S., JCIT D.R
Section 147Section 250Section 69C

ITA No.1767/Bang/2024 Swamy Holagundi IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B’’BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND

Shabana Parvez Malim, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 31(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3759/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Gosainassessment Year : 2015-16 Shabana Parvez Malim, Ito, Ward-31(2)(1), B-403, Atlantic Sagarcity, Kautilya Bhavan, 4Th Floor, Vp Road, Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400098. Mumbai-400058. Pan : Bpxpm9611Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mohd. Shahabkhan Revenue By : Shri Swapnil Choudhary

For Appellant: Shri Mohd. ShahabkhanFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 274

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “G” BENCH : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP

Abhay Ispat (India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Officer, Mumbai - 6, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3575/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav KabraFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37Section 37(1)Section 80G

return filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny, and statutory notices under section 143(2) and section 142(1) were issued and served on the assessee. After considering the submissions of the assessee in response to the statutory notices, the assessment was concluded vide order dated 20.09.2022 passed under

Coral India Finance & Housing Limited, Mumbai vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 3, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby

ITA 2496/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri V K Ginde, ARFor Respondent: Shri R A Dhyani, (CIT-DR)
Section 135Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37Section 37(1)Section 80GSection 80G(2)(a)

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Amjad Usman Khan, Thane vs. DCIT, Circle 1, Thane

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1973/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year 2013-14

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Aditya M. Rai, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 50CSection 54

treated as a return filed in response to the notice issued under section 148 of the Act. Thereafter, statutory notices under section 142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee calling for various details. However, the assessee did not respond to any of the notices ... present case, the assessment was concluded on a best judgment basis as the assessee failed to respond to the statutory notices issued under section 142(1) of the Act. It is pertinent to note that by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2024 w.e.f. 01.10.2024, the learned CIT(A) has been empowered

Arunkumar Mithalal Soni, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 23-1-1, Mumbai

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

ITA 6687/MUM/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (Accountant Member), MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Nirav Shah & Shri Viraj BhayaniFor Respondent: 07.05.2025
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 48Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM

Pawan Chauhan, Meerut vs. ITO Ward-2(4), Noida

In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2616/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Sudha Gupta, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण िद"ी पीठ “एस एम सी”, िद"ी "ी िवकास अव"थी, "ाियक सद" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

Mohan Hardasmal Tahilyani, Gandhidham vs. Incometax Officer Ward 1 Gandhidham, Gandhidham

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 176/RJT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot04 Aug 2025AY 2015-16
Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 250

ITA No. 176/RJT/2025 A.Y 15-16 Mohan H Thaliyani, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH (SMC), RAJKOT BEFORE