← 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)

Devendra Pratap Singh, Kumarganj Faizabad vs. ITO-1, Faizabad-New, Faizabad

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

ITA 176/LKW/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Jul 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Purnodaya Kumar Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Kumar, DR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

However, the assessee did not file a return in response to the notice under section 148, nor to the subsequent notice under section 142(1). However, in response to the notice under section 142(1), the assessee submitted a reply in which it was stated that his firm dealt

Super Packagers, Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh vs. Income Tax Officer - 1(3)(4), Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh

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

ITA 132/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Subhash Malguria & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2017-18 Super Packagers, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 80/72, Latouch Road, Ganga Oil Ward-1(3)(4), Kanpur 208001 Mill Compound, Kanpur-208001 Pan:Abtfs2620L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Rakesh Garg, Adv Revenue By: Sh. Puneet Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.07.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: [ This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated 10.12.2024, Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Assessment Order Passed By The Ld. Ao Under Section 144 On 25.11.2019. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts Of The Case In Passing The Impugned Order Dated 10/12/2024 Ex-Parte & Without Deciding The Appeal On Merits. 2. Learned Ao Has Erred In Law & On Facts Of The Case While Passing The Impugned Order Dated 25/11/2019 & Learned Cit(A) Has Upheld Because The Assessment In The Present Case Has Been Carried Out In Respect Of A Non-Existent Entity & Is Thus Void-Ab-Initio. 3. Because, The Present Case Being Of Dual Pan No. Abtfs2620L One Relating To Partnership Firm (Which Ceased To Exist From 01/04/2011) & The Other Relating To The Individual Person (Pan Aaqpj2279Q), Transaction Taken Place In The Bank With Respect To The Pan Of The Partnership Firm Having All Been Disclosed & Assessed In The Return Filed Under Pan Aaqpj2279Q. There Has Been No Escapement Of Income, The Addition Of Rs.93,90,793/- Made Be Deleted.

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Puneet Kumar, CIT DR
Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 2Section 250Section 69A

Baroda during the demonetization period but had not filed its income tax return for the assessment year 2017-18. Therefore, a notice under section 142(1) was issued to the assessee, for filing of such return but the same was not complied with the. As such ld. AO noted that ... course of his assessment order, the ld. AO records that he issued as many as five notices to the assessee under section 142(1) and 144, but the assessee did not respond to any of these notices. Since the assessee did not make any response, the ld. AO observed that

Vivek Dixit, Kanpur vs. ACIT-CC-2, Kanpur

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

ITA 258/LKW/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: None
Section 127Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “SMC”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.258/LKW/2024 (Assessment

Shri Jalaram Arogya Seva Trust, Sabarkantha vs. The ITO (Exemption), Palanpur

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 808/AHD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Kamal Deep Singh, Sr. D.R
Section 11Section 115BSection 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144BSection 68

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

Bipinkumar Mansukhbhai Detroja, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward 4(2)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 217/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalbipinkumar Mansukhbhai Detroja, Income Tax Officer, Vs. 420 C/O Ankita Tiles, Ward-4(2)(1), Opp. Bindal Oil Mil,Gota Gam, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad-382481. [Pan :Ajgpd0402 Q] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Rajendra Singhal, Ar Respondent By: Shri Bp Makwana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31.07.2025 O R D E R Per Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-:-

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Singhal, ARFor Respondent: Shri BP Makwana, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271ASection 69A

follows:- “10. The assessee has not furnished cogent, logical and justifiable explanation to the issues flagged vide notices issued time-to-time under section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Further, the bank account and cash book also remained to be explained. Therefore, in view of the foregoing

A Menarini India Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The PCIT-1, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 877/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. BRR KUMAR (Vice President), Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 92C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “D” BENCH Before: DR. BRR KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT And Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR

Navbharat Holidays, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3)(1) (Previous Ward-5(2)(5)), Ahmedabad

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1753/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Amit Pratap Singh, Sr.DR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 44ASection 69A

Assessing Officer has noted that the first notice under section 143(2) was issued through ITBA Module on 19.09.2017. Thereafter, notices under section 142(1) along with questionnaire were issued on 18.07.2018, 08.10.2018, 27.10.2018, and 15.11.2018, requiring the assessee to furnish explanation regarding cash deposits aggregating to Rs.25

M/S. Bodal Chemicals Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeals being IT(SS)A No

ITA 318/AHD/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jul 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri S.S. Nagar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kamlesh Makwana, CIT-DR and Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.DR
Section 115JSection 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153A(1)(a)Section 153A(1)(b)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ ‘A’ अहमदाबाद। अहमदाबाद। आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण अहमदाबाद

Late Abdul Rahiman Ibrahim Patait L/H Mujeeb Patait, Ratnagiri vs. Income Tax Officer, Ratnagiri

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1570/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1570/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Late Abdul Rahiman Ibrahim V The Income Tax Officer, Patait Through Legal Heir S Ward-1, Ratnagiri. Mujeeb Abdul Patait, 318, Kanhe Mohala, Ap Kanhe, Tal Chiplun, Ratnagiri-415604. Pan: Adspp6791D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Arvind Renge – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 28/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31/07/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By Mr.Mujeeb Patait As Legal Heir Of Late Abdul Rahiman Ibrahim Patait, Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2017-18 Dated 25.03.2025, Emanating From Order U/S.147 R.W.S 144 Of The Income

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 159Section 250

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ”एस एम सी” "ायपीठ पुणेम"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “SMC” :: PUNE BEFORE DR.DIPAK

Amit Ambadas Mete, Aurangabad vs. ITO, Ward 1 (5) Aurangabad, Auranagabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1524/PUN/2025[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2025AY 2010-2011

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

For Appellant: Shri Ramesh N ThetheFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Kumar Kedia
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1524/PUN/2025

Bhagavan Devaram Patil, Jalgaon vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Jalgaon

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

ITA 1447/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Kumar Kedia
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.1447/PUN/2025

Dhondiram Pundalik Dhule, Raigad vs. Income Tax Officer, Panvel Maharashtra

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 895/PUN/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.895/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dhondiram Pundalik Dhule, V The Income Tax Officer, 114B, Gayali Aali, Ram Kadu S Panvel, Maharashtra. Road, Mahad – 402301. Maharashtra. Pan: Bcqpd6127A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Bharat Raichandani – Ar(Virtual) Revenue By Shri Eknath Abhang –Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 24/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31/07/2025

Section 139Section 147oSection 148Section 250Section 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ”एस एम सी” "ायपीठ पुणेम"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “SMC” :: PUNE BEFORE DR.DIPAK

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Panvel vs. Aswad Jaidas Patil, Pezari Post Poynad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 462/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Prakash G JhunjhunwalaFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250(4)Section 68Section 69A

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

Aswad Jaidas Patil, Raigad vs. Dy, Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-Panvel, Panvel

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 344/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Prakash G JhunjhunwalaFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250(4)Section 68Section 69A

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

Padmavathi Morthala, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-11(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 704/HYD/2025[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Jul 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA, Sai KumarFor Respondent: Sri Gurpreet Singh, Sr. AR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD “A” BENCH: HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANJUNATHA

Dhanalaxmi & Company, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-9(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 489/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA, KA Sai PrasadFor Respondent: MS. Helen Ruby Jesindha, Sr. AR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD “SM-A” BENCH: HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI

Late Byrraju Somaraju Rep by Lr Byrraju Pratap Raju, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-11(1), Hyderabad

ITA 1020/HYD/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice- & Shri Manjunatha, G.

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr.AR
Section 142(1)Section 148Section 50C

ITA No 1020 of 2024 Late Byrraju Somaraju आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad

Channarayapatna Nanjappa Chandregowda, Hassan vs. ITO, Ward 1 & Tps, Hassan

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

ITA 2371/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Mr. Zain Ahmed Khan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand Kalakeri, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69

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

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1 1, Bengaluru vs. Global Tech Park Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result appeal no 2319/ Bang/2024 filed by the assessee is partly

ITA 2363/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand Kalakeri, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 131Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 40aSection 69

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL

M/S. Global Tech Park Pvt Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(1), Bengaluru

In the result appeal no 2319/ Bang/2024 filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2320/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand Kalakeri, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 131Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 40aSection 69

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL