“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)

Anil Mahajan, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 63(1), New Delhi

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 7611/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraanil Mahajan Vs. Acit C/O. Kapil Goel, Adv, F- Circle 63(1) 26/124, Secdtor-7, Rohini New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Abapm0133D Appellant Respondent Anil Mahajan Vs. Acit 10872, Jhandewalan, Nabi Circle 63(1) Karim, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Abapm0133D Appellant Respondent

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

1 ITA No. 3816 & 7611/Del/2019 ANIL MAHAJAN VS. ACIT IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI (DELHI BENCH ‘A’ NEW

Anil Mahajan, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 63(1), New Delhi

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 3816/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

1 ITA No. 3816 & 7611/Del/2019 ANIL MAHAJAN VS. ACIT IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI (DELHI BENCH ‘A’ NEW

Ashok Appaji Patil, Belgaum vs. Intl. Taxation Ward, Panaji

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

ITA 49/PAN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji03 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A.No.49/Pan/2025 (A.Y.2016-17) Ashok Appaji Patil, Vs. I T O, 3338/1A,Sankalp International Taxation, Building, 3 Floor, Gondhalli Galli, Reac, Belagavi-590001, Panaji-403001, Karnataka. Goa. Pan/Gir No:Aqopp2917M Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Letter Dt 1-07-2025. Respondent By : Smt.Rijula Uniyal.Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 02.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 03.07.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Assessing Officer Passed U/S 144 R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Passed In Pursuance To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel (Drp) U/S 144C(5) Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised Grounds Of Appeal Challenging The Action Of Lower Authorities Drp/Ao Partly Sustaining The Addition Without Providing

For Appellant: Letter dt 1-07-2025For Respondent: Smt.Rijula Uniyal.Sr.DR

Section 144Section 144C(1)Section 144C(5)

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

M/S Teracom (P) Ltd, Ponda vs. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax - 2, Panaji

In the result, the Stay applications filed by the assessee are infactious and are dismissed, and the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3/PAN/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji03 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. Nos. 2/Pan/2025 & S A.2/Pan/2025 I T A. Nos. 3/Pan/2025 & S A.3/Pan/2025 (A.Y. 2010-11 & A.Y.2011-12 ) Teracom Ltd, Vs Jcit-Range-2, 55,1 St Floor, Aayakarbhavan, Patto, . Ponda Commerce Center Panaji, Ponda-403401, Goa-403001. Goa. . Pan .No. Aabct5254B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By Shri.Rama Rivonkar.Ar Revenue By Shri.Capt Pradeep Arya.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 02.07.2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 03.07.2025 Order Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Assesse Against The Separate Orders Of The Nfac Delhi/Cit(A) Passed U/Sec 143(3) & U/Sec 250 Of The Act. 2. Since The Issues Involved In These Appeals Are Common & Similar, Hence They Are Clubbed, Heard & A Consolidated Order Is Passed. For The Sake Of Convenience, We Shall Take Up Ita No.2/Pan/2025, A.Y 2010-11 As Lead Case & Facts Narrated. The Assessee Has Raised The Grounds Of Appeal Challenging The Order Of The Cit(A)

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

M/S Teracom (P) Ltd, Ponda vs. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax - 2, Panaji

In the result, the Stay applications filed by the assessee are infactious and are dismissed, and the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2/PAN/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji03 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

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

Surya Land Developers, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer-1(4), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 328/RPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur03 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Judicial Ember

For Appellant: Shri Vikaas S. Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr.-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 201Section 40

return of income declaring the income to be nil. Subsequently, notice under section 143(2) was issued on 10.9.2015 and notice under section 142(1) dated 13.6.2016 was issued along with the questionnaire. The assessee contended that the notices were without jurisdiction and relied upon section

Amar Singh Sahu, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Office 2(4) Jaipur, Jaipur

ITA 78/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Sushil Kulhari, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 250Section 270ASection 40

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A-Bench” JAIPUR Jh euh"k

Shrikrushna Gramin Bigarsheti Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Pune vs. ITO Ward 10(1), Pune

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

ITA 454/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: HeardITAT Pune03 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2020-21 Shrikrushna Gramin Bigarsheti Ito, Ward 10(1), Pune Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit Vs. Vadgaon Kashimbeg, Ambegaon, Pune – 410503 Pan: Aadas4001K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Abhay A Avchat Department By : Shri Akhilesh Srivastva, Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing : 01-07-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 03-07-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Abhay A AvchatFor Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastva, Addl.CIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 68Section 80P

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

Venugopal Reddy Gelivi, Hyderabad vs. ITO (Int Taxn)-1, Hyderabad

ITA 393/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 50C

आयकर अपीलीय न्यायाधिकरण में, हैदराबाद 'ए' बेंच, हैदराबाद IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘A‘Bench, Hyderabad श्री मंजूनाथ

Koneni Reddeppa Naidu, Chittoor vs. ITO., Ward -1, Madanapalle

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 166/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA K A Sai PrasadFor Respondent: Sri B Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

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

Share Microfin Limited, Hyderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 448/HYD/2023[Assessment Year 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Jul 2025

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.448/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Share Microfin Ltd Vs. Dy.Cit Hyderabad Circle 3 ( 1 ) Pan:Aaecs9243C Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Cas Shri K.C.Devdas & Shanker राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Narender Kumar Naik, Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 05/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 03/07/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: CAs Shri K.C.Devdas & ShankerFor Respondent: : Shri Narender Kumar Naik, CIT (DR)

Section 69

ITA No 448 of 2023 Share Microfin Ltd आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(1), Hyderabad vs. B.Ramalinga Raju, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee and the appeal filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 56/HYD/2020[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Jul 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA K C DevdasFor Respondent: Sri B Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147

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

Byrraju Ramalinga Raju, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-8, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee and the appeal filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1865/HYD/2019[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Jul 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA K C DevdasFor Respondent: Sri B Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147

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

DCIT, Central Circle, 1-(4), Kolkata vs. Kkalpana Industries India Limited, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2589/KOL/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.2589/Kol/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011) Dcit, Central Circle-1(4), Vs Kkalpana Industries India Ltd. 4Th Floor, Room No.3, New Kolkata B.K.Market, Middleton Row, Kolkata-700071 Pan No. :Aabck 2239 D (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Pankaj Pandey, Addl. Cit-Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 03/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 03/07/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per George Mathan, Jm : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 10.07.2024 Of The Ld. Cit(A), Kolkata-20, Passed For The Assessment Year 2010-2011. 2. Shri Pankaj Pandey, Ld. Sr. Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Ld. Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. 3. The Appeal Of The Revenue Is Barred By 79 Days. In This Regard, The Revenue Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Stating Therein Sufficient Reasons Which Are Plausible & Not Found To Be False. Accordingly, Delay Of 79 Days In Filing The Appeal Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted For Hearing. 4. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Dr That The Return Filed By The Assessee Was Originally Processed U/S.143(1) Of The Act. It Was The Submission That The Assessment Was Reopened By Issuing Of Notice U/S.148 Of The Act Dated

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Pandey, Addl. CIT-Sr.DR

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 148Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT

Anil Srichand Rohra, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(1), Kalyan

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

ITA 3274/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhailanil Srichand Rohra, Shop 743, Pawai Chowk, Thaily Bazar, Ulhasnagar, ............... Appellant Pan : Aegpr7262H V/S Ito, Ward – 2(1), ……………… Respondent Kalyan

For Appellant: Shri Sunil TalrejaFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 44ASection 69A

response to the aforesaid notice, the assessee did not file his return of income. Further, in response to the statutory notice issued under section 142(1) of the Act, the assessee only submitted the computation of income and a copy of the return originally filed. However, there was no explanation

Laqshya Media Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax - Circle 10(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1339/MUM/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhaillaqshya Media Limited, Jaganlaxmi, Laqshya House, Next To Rameshwar Temple, Saraswati Baug, Society Road, Jogeshwari (E), ............... Appellant Mumbai - 400060 Pan : Aaacl5004C V/S Acit – 10(1)(1), ……………… Respondent Mumbai

For Appellant: Shri Ravi SawanaFor Respondent: Shri Aditya M. Rai, Sr.DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(iii)

return filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny, and statutory 3 notices under section 143(3) and section 142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee. During the assessment proceedings, upon perusal of the books of accounts of the assessee, it was observed that

Abhishek Wahee, Mumbai vs. ITO Pne Ward 58(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1273/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosainabhishek Wahee Vs. Ito Pne Ward 58(1) 901, 9Th Floor, Mahesh Towers, Gilbert Hall, Mumbai – 400053. Pan/Gir No. Aawpw0511E (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER Abhishek Wahee Vs

Kurz India Private Limited, Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 627/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Makhijani (virtually appeared)For Respondent: Shri Aditya M. Rai, SrDR

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

Rs.2,77,00,850/-. The return filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny, and statutory notices under section 143(2) and section 142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to explain the reasons for the fall

Jug Vir Singh, Bulandshahr vs. ITO, Ward -3(1), Bulandshahr

In the result, the application for condonation of delay of 395 days in filing appeal and appeal of appellant/assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1406/DEL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 Jug Vir Singh, Vs. Ito, Ward 3(1), Vill. & Post: Nimchana, Bulandshahr Madhaiy, Thana Agota, Bulandshahr Pan No. Doups8660P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 30

PCIT, Ghaziabad, notice under Section 148 dated 26.03.2018 was issued to assessee. The assessee did not make any compliance. Notice under Section 142(1) of the Act dated 15.10.2018 was issued but no compliance was made by the assessee. Final opportunity was provided to the assessee by issuing notice under

Mrs. Sunita Vijay, Delhi vs. ITO Ward-44(1), Delhi

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

ITA 1403/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Mrs.Sunita Vijay, Vs. Ito, Ward-44(1), B-62, 2Nd Floor, Sector-8, Delhi Dwarka, Delhi Pin: 1100 75 Pan No. Agepv2684H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, CIT (DR)

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250

cash deposit during demonetization nor filed any ITR under Section 139 of the Act. The case was identified non-filer and notice under Section 142(1) of the Act was issued to assessee to file return on 22.01.2018. The assessee failed to furnish requisite information/details in response to notice under ... Section 142(1) of the Act. Therefore, on completion of proceedings, Ld. AO vide order dated 21.12.2019 made addition of Rs.1,15,06,952/-. 3. Against order dated 21.12.2019, appellant/assessee filed application for condonation of 855 days in filing appeal and appeal before Ld. CIT(A) which were dismissed vide