← 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)

Sellappa Gounder Kuppusamy, Tiruppur vs. ITO, Ward-2(4), Tiruppur

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

ITA 793/CHNY/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.793/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Sellappa Gounder Kuppusamy, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 125, Sulliporukkupalaiyam, Ward 2(5), Kilangundal, Mulanur, Tiruppur. Tiruppur 638 106. [Pan:Bbdpk7658F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri K. Muthu Kumar, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 03.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16.06.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 18.02.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Assessee Raised 2 Grounds Of Appeal Amongst Which, The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Rejecting The Condonation Petition & Confirming The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer When The Assessee Has Opted For 2

For Appellant: Shri K. Muthu Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148Section 44ASection 69A

assessee. 9. In this case, the Assessing Officer issued notice under section 143(2) of the Act dated 11.09.2018 and notice under section 142(1) of the Act dated 05.10.2018 and completed the assessment under section 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act dated 31.12.2018. Upon perusal of the medical reports

Goldie Sud, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 24(1)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 3475/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jun 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavassessment Year : 2010-11 Goldie Sud, The Income Tax Officer, 191-192, Ward-24(1)(4) & 24(1)(1), Shaheed Bhagatsingh Chsl, Vs. Piramal Chamber, J.B. Nagar, Lalbaug, Parel, Andheri East, Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400059. Pan : Amnps2413C (Appellant) (Respondent) S.A. No. 71/Mum/2025 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 3475/Mum/2025) Assessment Year : 2010-11 Goldie Sud, The Income Tax Officer, 191-192, Ward-24(1)(4) & 24(1)(1), Shaheed Bhagatsingh Chsl, Vs. Piramal Chamber, J.B. Nagar, Lalbaug, Parel, Andheri East, Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400059. Pan : Amnps2413C (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Goldie Sud (A‟S In Person) Revenue By : Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri Goldie Sud (A‟s in person)For Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148

absence of any response from the assessee pursuant to the notice issued under section 148 of the Act, statutory notices under section 142(1) of the Act and a final show cause notice were also issued to the assessee. However, the same were returned undelivered, and there was no compliance

A.K. Capital Services Limited, Mumbai vs. PCIT, Mumbai

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

ITA 2959/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, () & Shri Prabhash Shankar, ()

Section 142Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80G

orders passed by the Authorities, it appears that before the assessment order was passed, a notice was served on the assessee under Section 142 (1) of the Act and 20 queries pertaining to different heads were made therein. The ninth query in the notice under Section 142 (1 ... Social Responsibility along with bifurcation of the expenses under different heads. An exhaustive reply was submitted by the assessee to the notice under Section 142 (1) of the Act. In paragraph 8 of the reply, the assessee gave the detailed note pertaining to the expenditure for the Corporate Social Responsibility

M/S. Imagicaaworld Entertainment Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 8, Mumbai

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

ITA 2175/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2021-22 M/S Imagicaa World Pr. Cit-8, Entertainment Ltd., Room No. 611, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Admin Building, Mumbai Pune Vs. Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Road, Express Road, Sangadewadi, Mumbai-400020. Raigarh-410203. Pan No. Aaica 2573 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Madhur Agrawal & Mr. Mahesh Rajora Revenue By : Mr. R.A. Dhyani, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Mr. Madhur Agrawal &For Respondent: Mr. R.A. Dhyani, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263

Assessing Officer had, in fact, conducted inquiries during the assessment proceedings. The Assessing Officer, by way of notice dated 05.08.2022 issued under Section 142(1) of the Act (at pages 52–54 of the Paper Book), sought detailed clarifications from the assessee, including information on the nature of business, source

Kohinoor Nagari Sahakari Pathsanstha Maryadit, Bhiwandi vs. ITO WD-1(2), Kalyan

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

ITA 2809/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shir Om Prakash Kant & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHIR OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAJ

Abhinav Rastogi, Chamoli vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(4)(4) Sirnagar, Sirnagar

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 37/DDN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun13 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sh. Abhinav Rastogi, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Tcp Market Joshimath, Ward-1(4)(4), Chamoli, Srinagar, Uttarakhand Uttarakhand Pan :Ccrpr7932M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Neeraj Mangla, Ca Department By Sh. A.S. Rana, Sr. Dr

Section 142(1)Section 68Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DEHRADUN “SMC” BENCH, DEHRADUN BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI M

Sree Taralabalu Jagadguru Education Society, R T Nagar, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

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

ITA 762/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Ms. Shreeraksha, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Kiran D, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 10(23)(C)Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)

amount spent for purchase of fixed assets for Rs.17,08,31,908/- and capital expenditure of Rs.18,79,61,806/-. Accordingly, notice under section 142(1) of the Act dated 02.12.2021 was sent calling for details of application of income and evidence for the amount spent out of accumulated funds

Maa Ashapura Developers, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 42(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 276/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya (CA)For Respondent: ShriAnnavaram Kosuri SR.AR
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69C

DGIT(Inv), Mumbai with respect to dealers providing accommodation entries by issuing bogus bills without supply of any goods, the notice under section 142(1) was issued. Finally, the Ld.AO found that the assessee had purchased from different parties total amountto Rs.18,23,600/-, which was added back under section

Rajesh Babulal Shah, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 20(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals bearing ITA Nos 2385 to 2387/Mum/2025 are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2386/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: The Ld.Cit(A) Are Appearing As Follows:- Sr.No.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram Kosuri, SR. AR
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 249(2)Section 250Section 271ASection 272A(1)(d)Section 68

proceedings, the Ld.AO found that the assessee had received unsecured loan amount to Rs.1,26,61,834/-. The assessee was asked to explain section 142(1) of the Act. Finally, the order was passed exparte and the entire unsecured loan amount was added back under section

Rajesh Babulal Shah, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 20(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals bearing ITA Nos 2385 to 2387/Mum/2025 are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2385/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: The Ld.Cit(A) Are Appearing As Follows:- Sr.No.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram Kosuri, SR. AR
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 249(2)Section 250Section 271ASection 272A(1)(d)Section 68

proceedings, the Ld.AO found that the assessee had received unsecured loan amount to Rs.1,26,61,834/-. The assessee was asked to explain section 142(1) of the Act. Finally, the order was passed exparte and the entire unsecured loan amount was added back under section

DCIT 4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Manbhari Constructions Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue bearing ITA

ITA 4034/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 250

under CASS and accordingly notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued and served on the assessee. However, the notice under section 142(1) was issued and assessee was asked to file the explanation related to the discrepancies in receipts declared in the P&L Account amount

Brahma Tourism India Pvt. Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Ward 5(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 85/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roybrahma Tourism India Vs. Acit, Ward-5(2) Private Limited Central Revenue 200A, Gali No.2, Building Block A, Shakarpur, New Delhi – 110002 Delhi - 110092 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aadcb2402M Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 201(1)

Authority but no compliance was made by the assessee within the time prescribed by the authority. After that a show cause notice under Section 142(1) of the Act was issued on 20.11.2018 to the assessee as well as its director through speed post and their email at gargatul177@yahoo.com

Vision Exports, Moradabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Moradabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2361/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2017-18 Vision Exports, Vs Acit, Faridpur, Sambhal Road, Central Circle, Moradabad – 244 001, Moradabad. Uttar Pradesh. Pan: Aajfv0634Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ca; Shri Mohammad Ammar, Ca & Shri Tariq Nafees, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 23.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.06.2025 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 23.06.2023 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Lucknow-3 (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. First Appellate Authority Or ‘The Ld. Faa’, For Short) In Appeal No.Cit(A), Lucknow-3/10314/2018-19 Arising Out Of The Appeal Before It Against The Order Dated 30.12.2018 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) By The Acit, Central Circle, Moradabad (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao).

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR
Section 127Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

selected for scrutiny assessment, and consequently, a notice under section 143(2) was issued on September 17, 2018, followed by a notice under section 142(1). On December 15, 2016, a search and seizure operation was conducted under Section 132 of the Act, at the premises of the assessee firm

DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad vs. Solitaire Realinfra Private Limited, Noida

ITA 1349/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘C’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA

DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad vs. Solitaire Realinfra Private Limited, Noida

ITA 1336/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘C’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA

Solitaire Realinfra Private Limited, Noida vs. DCIT, Ghaziabad

ITA 1193/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmadcit, Central Circle, Ghaziabad.

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘C’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA

Sukanti Educational and Charitable Trust, Sonepur vs. ITO, Exemption Ward, Sambalpur

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

ITA 51/CTK/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack12 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 10Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 57

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण कटक पीठ, कोलकाता में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH AT KOLKATA [वर्चुअल कोटु] [Virtual

ACIT, Circle-1(1), Rajkot vs. Sunshine Tiles Company Pvt. Ltd., Morbi

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 649/RJT/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot12 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. & Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 649 /Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2011-12) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Sunshine Tiles Company Pvt. Tax, Cir-1(1), Rajkot Ltd. Vs. Room No. 502, Aayakar Bhavan, S. No. 150 160/P1, B/H Sunhil Race Course Ring Road, Ceramics 8-A, National Highway, Rajkot – 360001 Rajkot – 360001 [Pan No.: Aancs3264L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R. K. Doshi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. & DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL

Aluri Yogendra Kumar L/R of Late Aluri Madhusudhana Rao, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Guntur

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

ITA 173/VIZ/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam12 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

basis of information received that the assessee had deposited cash during the demonetization period, notice under section 142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee. Assessee failed to comply to the notices. Therefore, Ld. Assessing Officer [hereinafter in short “Ld. AO"] proceeded to complete the assessment

The Chandarlapdu Large Size Cooperative Credit Society Limited, Chandarlapadu vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3), Vijayawada

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

ITA 11/VIZ/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam12 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Veeravalli Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.11/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) The Chandarlapdu Large Size V. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 1(3) C.R. Building, 1St Floor Annex. Cooperative Credit Society Limited 2-10, Society Building M.G. Road, Vijayawada – 520002 Bobbilapadu Road, Chandarlapadu Post Mandal Andhra Pradesh Krishna District – 521182, Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aacat7616A] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 80A(5)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

filed return of income under section 139(1) of the Act. Ld. Assessing Officer [hereinafter in short “Ld.AO"] issued notices under section 142(1) of the Act dated 23.11.2017, 02.08.2019 & 23.08.2019 requiring the assessee to file its return of income and to furnish information. In response, assessee filed its Return ... that the assessee has failed to file the return of income U/s. 139(1) of the Act. Further, in response to notice under section 142(1) of the Act issued on 23.11.2017, 02.08.2019 & 23.08.2019, assessee belatedly filed the return of income on 12.09.2019 by claiming deduction under section