← 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)

Ravinder Singh Thakkar, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 816/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Jul 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gorav Avasthi, JCIT
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147

notice Assessment year 1997-98 - Pursuant to a notice under section 148, assessee filed its return - Thereafter Assessing Officer issued a notice under section 142(1) and completed assessment estimating income of assessee from business by applying provisions of section 145 - On appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) did not adjudicate issue

Sylvan Greens Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 6, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 414/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Smt. Neelam Bhala, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gorav Avasthi, JCIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 801C

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,’’B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh

S R Agro Tech, Behror vs. ITO, Ward, Behror

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1304/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 234BSection 40Section 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,’’SMC” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh

Nitu Kumari Manish Kumar, Ahmedabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 714/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2018-19 Nitu Kumari Manish Kumar The Ito, Ward-2(1)(2) Shreenath Bungalows Vs. Ahmedabad. Opp: Full Stop Society Motera, Chankheda Link Road Gujarat. Pan : Dvfpk 8773 R (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Nitin Pathak, Ar Assessee By Revenue By : Shri Umesh Kumar Agrawal, Sr.Dr

For Respondent: Shri Umesh Kumar Agrawal, Sr.DR
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 271ASection 69

Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) due to the assessee's failure to register on the e-filing portal. The JAO then issued notices under section 142(1) on 15.11.2022 and 06.12.2022, and a show cause notice dated 10.01.2023. In response, the assessee submitted that the property in question was purchased jointly

Parshottambhai Shamjibhai Gajjar, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-4(2)(4), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 588/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2017-18 Parshottambhgai Shamjibhai Gajjar The Ito, Ward-4(2)(4) 75, Shastrinagar Vs. Now Ward-4(2)(3) Nr. Anandbaug Society Ahmedabad. Ghatlodia Ahmedabad. Pan : Bhtpg 0081 N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Jaimin Shah, Ca Revenue By : Shri Umesh Kumar Agrawal, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/07/2025 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per Makarand V.Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Jaimin Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

Large Cash Deposit during demonetization period.” Accordingly, notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 24.09.2018, followed by notices under section 142(1) on multiple dates including 28.05.2019, 05.08.2019 and 31.08.2019. The assessee failed to comply with these notices or submit any explanation in response ... show cause notice issued under section 142(1) dated 14.10.2019, culminating in an ex-parte assessment under section 144 read with section 143(3) dated 22.11.2019. In the said assessment order, the AO recorded that during the demonetization period (9th November 2016 to 30th December 2016), the assessee had made

Nanesh Finance Corporation, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 86/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: CA Maheswar ReddyFor Respondent: Shri Gurpreet Singh, Sr. AR
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271ASection 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD “A” BENCH: HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI MANJUNATHA G, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD

Syed Zahed Ali, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-14(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 474/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.474/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2017-18) Shri Syed Zahed Ali, Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ward-14(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aifpa6433J (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri Y.V. Bhanu Narayan Rao, C.A. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Sumitha Parmata, Sr-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 22/07/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 25/07/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M. : This Appeal Is Filed By Shri Syed Zahed Ali (“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 05.02.2025 For The A.Y. 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

For Appellant: Shri Y.V. Bhanu Narayan RaoFor Respondent: Sumitha Parmata, SR-DR
Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 234Section 234BSection 250Section 69A

notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) was issued to the assessee on 08.08.2018. Subsequently, notice under section 142(1) of the Act was issued to the assessee seeking information regarding the source of cash deposits in bank accounts and reconciliation between service

Pingle Ranadhir Reddy, Secunderabad vs. ITO, Ward-10(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 403/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: MS. S. SandhyaFor Respondent: Sri Gurpreet Singh, Sr. AR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 69A

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

Nagankesy Venkata Reddy, Sangareddy vs. ITO., Ward-1, Sangareddy

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

ITA 230/HYD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: CA Kumar Pal TatedFor Respondent: Shri Gurpreet Singh, Sr. AR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

1 ITA.No.230/Hyd./2025 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD “A” BENCH: HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI MANJUNATHA G, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ACIT, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata vs. Aristro Capital Markets Limited, Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 693/KOL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 127Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153C

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ “ए’’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH: KOLKATA "ी राजेश कुमार

ACIT, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata vs. Aristro Capital Markets Limited, Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 692/KOL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 127Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153C

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ “ए’’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH: KOLKATA "ी राजेश कुमार

M/S. Bata India Ltd., Kolkata vs. DDIT, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 1073/KOL/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Jul 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115Section 115PSection 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(3)Section 250

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण कोलकाता 'ए' पीठ, कोलकाता में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘A’ BENCH, KOLKATA श्री संजय

Salarpuria Properties Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Central Circle - 1(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 1986/KOL/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Jul 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 51

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ “सी’’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH: KOLKATA "ी राजेश कुमार

M/S. Super Auto Forge Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward-3(1), Chennai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1358/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Mr. K. Ramakrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 37Section 80G

details submitted has taken the conscious call to allow the deduction. In this regard the ld. AR took us through the notice under section 142(1) of the Act (page 13 to 15 of PB) and the response filed by the assessee (page

Malakendragoud Basanagoud Patil, Bijapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Vijayapur

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

ITA 331/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Harsha V.R., CA
Section 142(1)Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘SMC’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K

Rangegowda Nakoppalu Murthy Siddappa, Koppalu vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Chickmagalur

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

ITA 223/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Gokul, AdvocateFor Respondent: Advocate, Standing
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘SMC’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K

Prathik Ravikumar, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 1015/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Respondent: Shri Avinash Mallya
Section 142(1)Section 148

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K

Bachharaj & Co Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Pr Comm. of Income Tax-3, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2613/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Kirit Kamdar, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Satyaprakash R. Singh, CIT D/R
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80G

+ | आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "ायपीठ, मुंबई | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON

Strata Geosystems (India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -8, Mumbai

ITA 2447/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am) Strata Geosystems (India) P. Ltd. Pcit Plot No. A-15/16, Sabnam 6Th Floor House, Central Cross Road B Vs. Aayakar Bhavan Midc, Andheri East M.K. Road Mumbai-400 093. Mumbai-400 020. Pan : Aaics3717K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Prakash JotwaniFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui
Section 135Section 142Section 143Section 143(3)Section 2Section 263Section 37(1)Section 80Section 80G

made detailed inquiry in respect of claim of the appellant under section 80-G of the Act in terms of his notice under section 142 (1) of the Act dated 08-10-2022 and only after satisfying himself, allowed a deduction under section ... relevant bank statements evidencing payment of donations and approval certificate of Rotary Club were filed by the appellant in reply to notice under section 142 (1) as above and after examining the same, the AO allowed a deduction of Rs. 15,00,000/- under Section

B. Arunkumar Capital & Credit Services Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 3, Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly

ITA 2034/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37(1)Section 80G

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (ACCOUNTANT