← 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)

Chunilal Govind Vanik, Veraval vs. Pr. CIT, Rajkot-1, Rajkot

ITA 323/RJT/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 263Section 69A

stock, which were examined by the assessing officer, as it is evident that during the assessment proceedings, the assessing officer issued notice under section 142(1) of the Act, asking the questions in respect of excess stock/ shortage of stock.Therefore, having examined the details and documents submitted by the assessee ... that no doubt the working of excess stock, was submitted by the assessee, during the assessment proceedings, in response to the notice, issuedunder section 142(1) of the Act, however, the assessee has failed to explain the source of such excess stock. Therefore, Ld. PCIT has rightly exercised his jurisdiction

Sun Exports, Veraval vs. Pr. CIT, Rajkot-1, Rajkot

ITA 322/RJT/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

Section 11SSection 143(3)Section 263Section 69A

stock, which were examined by the assessing officer, as it is evident that during the assessment proceedings, the assessing officer issued notice under section 142(1) of the Act, asking the questions in respect of excess stock/ shortage of stock.Therefore, having examined the details and documents submitted by the assessee ... that no doubt the working of excess stock, was submitted by the assessee, during the assessment proceedings, in response to the notice, issuedunder section 142(1) of the Act, however, the assessee has failed to explain the source of such excess stock. Therefore, Ld. PCIT has rightly exercised his jurisdiction

Bharatkumar Kalyanjibhai Bhindi, Junagadh vs. PCIT, Rajkot-1, Rajkot

ITA 312/RJT/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhasr. No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 324/Rjt/2024 322/Rjt/2024 323/Rjt/2024 312/Rjt/2024 326/Rjt/2024 327/Rjt/2024 329/Rjt/2024 331/Rjt/2024 335/Rjt/2024 371/Rjt/2024

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 263Section 69A

stock, which were examined by the assessing officer, as it is evident that during the assessment proceedings, the assessing officer issued notice under section 142(1) of the Act, asking the questions in respect of excess stock/ shortage of stock.Therefore, having examined the details and documents submitted by the assessee ... that no doubt the working of excess stock, was submitted by the assessee, during the assessment proceedings, in response to the notice, issuedunder section 142(1) of the Act, however, the assessee has failed to explain the source of such excess stock. Therefore, Ld. PCIT has rightly exercised his jurisdiction

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Vijayawada vs. Vedmutha Electricals India Private Limited, Vijayawada

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 38/VIZ/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Us:

For Appellant: None
Section 131Section 147

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, विशाखापटणम पीठ में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Visakhapatnam Bench श्री रवीश सूद, माननीय न्याययक सदस्य

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Vijayawada vs. Vedmutha Electricals India Private Limited, Vijayawada

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 37/VIZ/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Us:

For Appellant: None
Section 131Section 147

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, विशाखापटणम पीठ में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Visakhapatnam Bench श्री रवीश सूद, माननीय न्याययक सदस्य

ACIT, Circle-1(1), Vijayawada vs. Vedmutha Electricals India Private Limited, Vijayawada

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 36/VIZ/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Us:

For Appellant: None
Section 131Section 147

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, विशाखापटणम पीठ में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Visakhapatnam Bench श्री रवीश सूद, माननीय न्याययक सदस्य

The Income Tax Officer, Circle-1(1), Vijayawada vs. Vedmutha Electricals India Private Limited, Vijayawada

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 35/VIZ/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Us:

For Appellant: None
Section 131Section 147

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, विशाखापटणम पीठ में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Visakhapatnam Bench श्री रवीश सूद, माननीय न्याययक सदस्य

ACIT, Circle-1(1), Vijayawada vs. Vedmutha Electricals India Private Limited, Vijayawada

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 34/VIZ/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Us:

For Appellant: None
Section 131Section 147

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, विशाखापटणम पीठ में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Visakhapatnam Bench श्री रवीश सूद, माननीय न्याययक सदस्य

Pantheerankave Service Co-Operative Bank, Kozhikode vs. ITO, Ward -2(3), Kozhikode

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

ITA 368/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year: 2017-18 Pantheerankav Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. .......... Appellant Olavanna, Kozhikode 673019 [Pan: Aaaap6394F] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Kozhikode .......... Respondent Appellant By: Shri Arun Raj S., Advocate Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 04.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.06.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 12.12.2024 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Appellant Is A Co-Operative Society Registered Under The Kerala State Co-Operative Societies Act, 1969. It Is Classified As A Primary Agricultural Credit Co-Operative Society. The Appellant Had Not Filed Return Of Income Under The Provisions Of Section 139(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) For Ay 2017-18. Based On The Information That The Appellant Made

For Appellant: Shri Arun Raj S., AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 80ASection 80A(5)Section 80P

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

Kizhakethil Prasad, Ernakulam vs. Income Tax Officer, International Taxation, Kochi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 272/COCH/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessmentyear:2016-17

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Veeramani, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 148

ITA No.272/Coch/2025 Kizhakethil Prasad, Ernakulam IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH:COCHIN BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT

Chudukadu Parambu Muhammed Sali, Kozhikode vs. ITO, Ward 1(3), Kozhikode

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 150/COCH/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year:2018-19 Mr. Chudukadu Parambu Muhammed Sali .......... Appellant Puthiyathoppu Thoduka, Francis Road, Kallai Post, Kozhikode District, Kerala-673003. Pan: Bycpp4655F Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Ward-1(3), Kozhikode. Appellant By: Shri Rafeek Kottackal, Advocate Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R.

For Appellant: Shri Rafeek Kottackal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)

1 Chudukadu Parambu Muhammed Sali vs. ITO IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO

Pananchery Service Cooperative Bank, Thrissur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(4), Thrissur

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

ITA 649/COCH/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year: 2013-14 Pananchery Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. .......... Appellant Pattikad, Pananchery, Thrissur 680652 [Pan: Aabap5815A] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(4), Thrissur .......... Respondent Appellant By: Shri Amaljith P.J., Ca Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 04.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.06.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 24.05.2024 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2013-14. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is A Co-Operative Society Registered Under The Kerala State Co-Operative Societies Act, 1969. It Is Classified As Primary Agricultural Credit Co-Operative Society. No Return Of Income Was Filed For Ay 2013-14. Therefore, The Ito, Ward-2(4), Thrissur (Hereinafter Called "The Ao") Formed

For Appellant: Shri Amaljith P.J., CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 80ASection 80A(5)Section 80P

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 4 Pananchery Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. not have been acted upon by the Assessing Officer

Mayank Raghuwanshi, Sevani Malava vs. ITO-1, Itarsi, Hoshangabad

ITA 852/IND/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 246ASection 253Section 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, इंदौर न्यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT

Kala Jain, Indore vs. Income Tax Officer, Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 799/IND/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 115BSection 147Section 148Section 246ASection 253Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PARESH M JOSHI

Sh. Sanjiv Jha, Dholpur vs. ITO, Ward-4, Bharatpur

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

ITA 610/JPR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CA (Thru: V.C.)For Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT -DR a
Section 144Section 148

1 ITA NO. 610/JPR/ 2025 SHRI SANJIV JHA VS ITO, WARD -4, BHARATPUR आयकरअपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुरन्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME

Fayyaz Ahmad, Nizampur, Tauru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward Bhiwadi

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

ITA 574/JPR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकरअपीलसं. / ITA. No. 574/JPR/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष / AssessmentYears : 2011-12 Shri Fayyaz Ahmad 22, Niazampur, Tauru, Gurgaon बनाम The ITO, Vs. Ward-Bhiwadi अपीलार्थी / Appellant Haryana - 122105 Alwar स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AIOPA 8272 G प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby : Shri Priyam Agarwal, Advocate Shri Shubhendra Singh Deep, Advocate राजस्व की ओरसे /Revenue by : Shri Gautam

For Appellant: Shri Priyam Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT -DR a
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 69A

आयकरअपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुरन्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC’’ JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh]U;kf

Satya Narain Agarwal, Jaipur vs. ACIT Circle 5, Jaipur

ITA 565/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: The Hearing Of The Appeal.

For Appellant: Sh. Tanuj Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

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

Madkini Hydro Power Private Limited, Dehradun vs. Income Tax Officer- 4(3), Lucknow

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

ITA 228/LKW/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2018-19 Madkini Hydro Power Private V. The Income Tax Officer 4(3) Limited Lucknow Flat No.4, Ii Floor 3, Scindia House Delhi 110 001 Tan/Pan:Aaecm1420B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Shalendera Kishore Singh, Adv. Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 10 06 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 06 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Shalendera Kishore Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR)
Section 115BSection 144Section 68

section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("ITA") was issued to the Assessee on 22.09.2019. It appears that a notice under section 142(1) of the ITA was issued to the Assessee on 19.11.2020. Apparently, another notice under section 142(1) of the ITA was issued

Shanker Enterprises, Kanpur vs. DCIT-2, Kanpur

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

ITA 221/LKW/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2012-13 Shanker Enterprises V. The Dcit-2 Panki Industrial Area Kanpur Site-1, Kanpur Tan/Pan:Abffs2369Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Swaran Singh, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Amit Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 09 06 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 06 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Swaran Singh, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Amit Kumar, D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 147oSection 153CSection 271(1)(c)

filed his return of income, showing income from non-speculation business, amounting to Rs.58,43,286/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) issued notice under section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called “the Act’), informing the assessee that the assessee had made transactions with M/s Bansal Suppliers

Muhammad Zameer Qureshi, Bareilly vs. Pr. CIT, Bareilly

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 344/LKW/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Muhammad Zameer Qureshi V. The Pcit 180, Azam Nagar Bareilly Bareilly Tan/Pan:Aacpz6783H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Neeraj Kumar, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Neeraj Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 139(4)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 263Section 69

entries in the Bank Accounts of the assessee and in this regard, the AO had duly raised queries by issuing statutory notices under section 142(1) of the Act. Our attention was drawn to copy of notice dated 16.12.2021 and another notice dated 02.02.2022 and it was submitted that vide