← 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)

Shaiju Assanarakunju, Kayamkulam vs. Income Tax Officer, Alappuzha

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

ITA 335/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shaiju Assanarakunju .......... Appellant Mukkavala, Kayamkulam, Kayamkulam 690502 [Pan: Abvpa6956F] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4, Alappuzha .......... Respondent Appellant By: Shri R. Krishnan, Ca Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 26.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.06.2025 O R D E R This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Vadodara [Cit(A)] Dated 25.03.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is An Individual Carrying On The Business Of General Merchants. No Regular Return Of Income For Ay 2017-18 Was Filed By The Appellant. However, Based On The Information That The Appellant Made Cash Deposit During Demonetisation Period, The Ao Issued Notice U/S. 142(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Calling Upon The Appellant To File Return Of Income For Ay 2017-18. The Appellant Was Also Issued A 2 Shaiju Assanarakunju Questionnaire Calling For Certain Details. The Appellant Neither Complied With The Notice U/S. 142(1) Nor Furnished The Details. In The Circumstances, The Ao Proceeded With Best Judgement Assessment U/S. 144 Of The Act By Making Addition Of Rs. 3,50,000/- Being Cash Deposit Made During Demonetisation Period, Rejecting The Contention Of The Appellant That The Same Was Made Out Of The Opening Cash Balance As On 08.11.2016 Of Rs. 9,68,192/-.

For Appellant: Shri R. Krishnan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 142(1)Section 144

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shaiju Assanarakunju

The Thudanganad Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd, Thudanganad vs. ITO, Ward 1, Thodupuzha

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

ITA 332/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2017-18 Thudanganad Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. .......... Appellant Thudanganad P.O., Muttom 685587 [Pan: Aacat5997N] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Thodupuzha .......... Respondent Appellant By: Shri Arun Raj S., Advocate Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 26.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.06.2025 O R D E R This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Nashik [Cit(A)] Dated 20.03.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Co-Operative Society Registered Under The Kerala State Co-Operative Societies Act, 1969. The Return Of Income For Ay 2017-18 Was Filed On 29.10.2017 Declaring Nil Income. The Ito, Ward 2, Thodupuzha (Hereinafter Called "The Ao") Issued Notices U/S. 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act). In Response To The Notice U/S. 142(1) Dated 09.10.2019, The Assessee Filed Necessary Documents. On Verification Of The Bye Laws & Other Documents It Is Found That The Appellant Is 2 Thudanganad Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. Engaged In Banking Activity. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The Ao Vide Order Dated 19.12.2019 Passed U/S. 143(3) Of The Act At A Total Income Of Rs. 14,40,605/-. While Doing So, The Ao Disallowed The Claim For Deduction Of Rs. 14,40,605/- U/S. 80P(2)(D) Of The Act Being Dividend Income Received From Other Co-Operative Societies.

For Appellant: Shri Arun Raj S., AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM Assessment Year: 2017-18 Thudanganad Service

Palmshore Hotels Private Limited, Thiruvananthapuram vs. Asst Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(), Thiruvananthapuram

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

ITA 983/COCH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K., Vp & Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev R., CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 43B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., VP AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM

JCIT OSD Central-1, Bhopal vs. M/S Shakshi Town Ship P Ltd, Gwalior

ITA 94/IND/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

Section 127Section 129Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 68

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

Tasleem Bano, Jaipur vs. Ward-5(4) Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 171/JPR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Ms. Apeksha Kalra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT -DR a
Section 127Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 292B

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

DCIT, Circle-I, Ludhiana vs. Findoc Investment Private Limited, Ludhiana

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 863/CHANDI/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 863/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 The Dcit, Vs M/S Findoc Investment Pvt.Ltd., Circle-1, 4Th Floor, Kartar Bhawan, Ludhiana. Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aabcf8332L अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ashwani Kumar & Shri Aditya Kumar, Cas Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.06.2025 Physical Hearing O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar & Shri Aditya Kumar, CAsFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 142(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ, च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, ‘A’ CHANDIGARH

Mukesh Narpatlal Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 597/AHD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad vs. N K Proteins Private Limited, Ahmedabad

In the result, no question of law arises

ITA 546/AHD/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Biren Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT-DR
Section 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

Book Profit under Section 115JB and thus set aside the original assessment order. (ii) Subsequently, the AO issued notice to the assessee under section 142 (1) on 06.02.2012 pursuant to the or-der under section 263 of the Act. The AO vide order dated 04.12.2012 restricted the claim for additional

N K Proteins Pvt. Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, no question of law arises

ITA 464/AHD/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Biren Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT-DR
Section 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

Book Profit under Section 115JB and thus set aside the original assessment order. (ii) Subsequently, the AO issued notice to the assessee under section 142 (1) on 06.02.2012 pursuant to the or-der under section 263 of the Act. The AO vide order dated 04.12.2012 restricted the claim for additional

Sandipan Bhagwanrao Jadhav, Latur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1, Latur

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

ITA 1247/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1247/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Sandipan Bhagwanrao Jadhav, V The Income Tax Officer, 1, Padmin, Behind Hanuman S. Ward-1, Latur. Temple, Prakash Nagar, Latur – 413512. Maharashtra. Pan: Abcpj1410E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Shilchandra Hajgude – Ar Revenue By Shri Akhilesh Srivastva– Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 17/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23/06/2025

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ”बी” "ायपीठ पुणेम"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “B” :: PUNE BEFORE MS.ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL

Raghu Satyanaryana Kollu, Kodad vs. ITO., Ward-1, Suryapet

In the result, both the captioned appeals are allowed in terms of the aforesaid observations

ITA 413/HYD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Us:

Section 147Section 148Section 250

following substantial question of law. “Whether the return filed by the assessee beyond the period stipulated u/s 139(1)/139(4) or Section 142(1)/148 can be held as non-est in the eyes of law and has invalidated for the purpose of deciding exemption ... held, that the “return of income” filed by the assessee beyond the period stipulated under Section 139(1) or Section 139(4) or Section 142(1) or Section 148 can also be accepted and acted upon provided further proceedings in relation to such assessment are pending in the statutory hierarchy

Raghu Satyanaryana Kollu, Kodad vs. ITO., Ward-1, Suryapet

In the result, both the captioned appeals are allowed in terms of the aforesaid observations

ITA 412/HYD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Us:

Section 147Section 148Section 250

following substantial question of law. “Whether the return filed by the assessee beyond the period stipulated u/s 139(1)/139(4) or Section 142(1)/148 can be held as non-est in the eyes of law and has invalidated for the purpose of deciding exemption ... held, that the “return of income” filed by the assessee beyond the period stipulated under Section 139(1) or Section 139(4) or Section 142(1) or Section 148 can also be accepted and acted upon provided further proceedings in relation to such assessment are pending in the statutory hierarchy

Laxmi Venkateshwara Auto Finance, Nalgonda vs. ITO., Ward-1, Nalgonda

ITA 1077/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Us:

For Appellant: Shri Mohd AfzalFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr.A.R
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69A

आयकर अपीलीय न्यायाधिकरण में, हैदराबाद ‘बी’ बेंच, हैदराबाद IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘B’ Bench, Hyderabad श्री रवीश

Laxmi Narayan Poddar, Durgapur vs. ITO, Durgapur

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

ITA 693/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey&Shri Rakesh Mishra]

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

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

Ram Azad Pal, Durgapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Durgapur

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

ITA 2300/KOL/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Jun 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm & Shri Sanjay Awasthi, Am Income Tax Officer, Ram Azad Pal Ward 2(4), Ranchi Colony, Benachity, Aaykar Bhavan, City Centre, Faridpur, Durgapur, Pin-713213, Vs. Durgapur, Pin-713216, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aoypp0987E Assessee By : Shri Vishal Agarwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri Nicholas Murmu, Dr Date Of Hearing: 17.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.06.2025

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Nicholas Murmu, DR
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 194Section 194CSection 69

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM AND SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, AM

Ntt Global Networks Private Limited, Mumbai vs. PCIT -6, Mumbai

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

ITA 3095/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Bhadresh DoshiFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, SR AR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37(1)Section 80GSection 80G(2)Section 80G(5)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM

Dalal and Broacha Stock Broking Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-4, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2718/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Prabhash Shankar(Physical Hearing) Dalal & Broacha Stock Broking Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-4, Pvt. Ltd. Vs Aayakar Bhawan, M.K.Road, 506, Maker Chambers V, 221, Mumbai Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021. [Pan No. Aaacd5662J] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 254(1)Section 263Section 80G

115BAA and furnished Form No. 10IC as per Income Tax Rules. The assessee further, stated that during assessment, assessing officer issued notice under section 142(1) and called detail of deduction claimed under section 80G. The assessee furnished details of donation to various charitable institution/trust. The copy of show cause

Braj Kishore Singh, Andheri East vs. Assessing Officer Int. Tax Ward 4(2)(1), International Tax, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is accordingly partly allowed for statistical

ITA 1011/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanbraj Kishore Singh Vs. Assessing Officer 604, Lantana, Nahar Amrit Internatinal Tax Ward Shakti, Chandivali, 4(2)91) Maharashtra -400 072. Room No. 632, Kautilya Bhavan, Pan: Bqips8474H C-41 To C-43, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051

Section 142(1)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(2)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “I”, MUMBAI BEFORE MS. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAJ KUMAR

Mark Corporate Advisores Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5765/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13 Mark Corporate Advisors Pvt. Ltd. Assistant Commissioner Of 404/1, The Summit Business Bay, Income-Tax, Circle 1(2), Sant Janabai Road, Opp Western Mumbai Express Highway, Vs. Vile Parle East S.O., Mumbai – 400057 (Pan: Aafcm5379J) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Suchek Anchaliya and Ms. Vaishali More, CAsFor Respondent: Shri. Mahadevan A.M. Krishanan, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT

Income Tax Officer, Ward-62(1), New Delhi vs. Girish Kumar Gupta, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and cross objections filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5366/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 148Section 68Section 69

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI