← 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)

DCIT-1(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Sbi Life Insurance Company Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue's appeal for the

ITA 1428/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Farooq IraniFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 10(34)Section 14ASection 250Section 44

return filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS, and statutory notices under Section 143(2) and Section 142(1) were issued and served on the assessee. During the assessment proceedings, it was observed that the assessee has income in the shareholders' account but treated the same

DCIT-1(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Sbi Life Insurance Company Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue's appeal for the

ITA 1427/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Farooq IraniFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 10(34)Section 14ASection 250Section 44

return filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS, and statutory notices under section 143(2) and section 142(1) were issued and served on the assessee. During the assessment proceedings, it was observed that the assessee has income in the shareholders' account but treated the same

DCIT-1(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Sbi Life Insurance Co. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue's appeal for the

ITA 1392/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Farooq IraniFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 10(34)Section 14ASection 250Section 44

return filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS, and statutory notices under section 143(2) and section 142(1) were issued and served on the assessee. During the assessment proceedings, it was observed that the assessee has income in the shareholders' account but treated the same

Rajesh Kumar Jaiswal, Allahabad vs. Deputy/ACIT(Central), Allahabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 16/ALLD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad02 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: the query raised by the assessing authority vide questionnaire issued under section 142 (1) dated 23.01.2021, in assessment proceedings for the AY 2018-19.

For Appellant: Sh. Nikhil Agarwal & Ms. VidishaFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 115Section 115BSection 142Section 24Section 250Section 68Section 69

number 00227 dated 22.10.2019, upon the sum of Rs.1.85 crores, much before the query raised by the assessing authority vide questionnaire issued under section 142 (1) dated 23.01.2021, in assessment proceedings for the AY 2018-19. 5. Because the learned AO as well as CIT(A) were not legally justified ... government exchequer, which was evidenced by the payment of the said tax before the issue of notice under section 142(1), the provisions of section 69 and consequently section 115BBE would not apply. The Ld AR further argued that to apply the provisions of Section 69, the twin conditions that

Prakash Ashokbhai Raninga, Porbandar vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Jamnagar

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees (ITA No

ITA 265/RJT/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot02 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 264/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2019-20) (Hybrid Hearing) Arvind Durlabhji Jogia The Pr. Commissioner Of Vs. Ashapura Jewells, Kirti Mandir Income Tax, Jamnagar Income Tax Office, 4Th Floor Road, Porbandar Manek Centre, Nehru Road, Jamnagar - 361008 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Accpj0313M (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.265/Rjt/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2019-20)

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Parekh, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT(DR)
Section 115Section 115BSection 127(2)Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 69

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DINESH MOHAN

Arvind Durlabhji Jogia, Porbandar vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Jamnagar

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees (ITA No

ITA 264/RJT/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot02 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 264/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2019-20) (Hybrid Hearing) Arvind Durlabhji Jogia The Pr. Commissioner Of Vs. Ashapura Jewells, Kirti Mandir Income Tax, Jamnagar Income Tax Office, 4Th Floor Road, Porbandar Manek Centre, Nehru Road, Jamnagar - 361008 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Accpj0313M (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.265/Rjt/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2019-20)

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Parekh, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT(DR)
Section 115Section 115BSection 127(2)Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 69

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DINESH MOHAN

Sant Kirpal Vidyak Mission, Ludhiana vs. ITO (Exemption), Chandigarh

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

ITA 561/CHANDI/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh02 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar Hon'Ble & Sh. Krinwant Sahay, Hon'Ble(Physical Hearing)

Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 154Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH “B”,CHANDIGARH. BEFORE SH. LALIET KUMAR HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH

Nisha Baheti, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-11(2), Kolkata.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1199/KOL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Nisha Baheti C/O S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Acit, Cir-11(2), Advocates 2, Garstin Place, Aaykar Bhavan, P-7, 2Nd Floor, Suite No.203, Off Chowringhee Square, Vs. Hare Street, Kolkata-700001, Kolkata-700069, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Ahmpb0320M Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Ar Revenue By : Ms. Roma Chaudhary, Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.05.2025

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Roma Chaudhary, DR
Section 10(38)Section 127(3)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JM Nisha

M/S. Hyundai Motor India Ltd., Kancheepuram vs. DCIT, Ncc-8(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2948/CHNY/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 May 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2948/Chny/2024 Assessment Years: 2022-23

For Appellant: Shri S.P.Chidambaram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand K Kalakeri,, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 251Section 263Section 54Section 54F

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, ’ ए’’ न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI श्री एबी टी. वर्की, न्यायिर्क

DCIT 3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Jovial Investment and Trading Company Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5025/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Prashant Barate, Sr.DR
Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 250Section 68Section 69C

treated as an accommodation entry transaction in the form of bogus unsecured loans. We find that during the reassessment proceedings, statutory notice under section 142(1) of the Act was issued to the assessee, inter-alia, seeking information to verify the genuineness of the transaction with CEA Consultants Private Limited

Rekha Modi, Delhi vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Noida

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4559/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 Rekha Modi Vs. Jcit Central Circle -1 E-380, First Floor, Greater Noida Kailash Part-I, New Delhi Pan No.Aaepm8105E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153BSection 153DSection 156Section 69A

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH

Prakash Chandra Jat, Chikarda, Dungla vs. Addl JCIT (A)-1, Kolkatta

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

ITA 331/JODH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur01 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) & The Findings Are Reproduced As Under:-

Section 115Section 142(1)Section 250Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR. BEFORE: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JUDICIAL

Kanak Kumar Jain L/H of Partner of M/S. Kesariyaji Filling Station, Udaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Udaipur

ITA 67/JODH/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur01 May 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Lodha (CA)For Respondent: Shri Karni Dan, Addl. CIT
Section 133ASection 148Section 154Section 189(3)Section 234ASection 234CSection 250Section 292BSection 42

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JODHPUR BENCH ‘SMC, JODHPUR BEFORE: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, AM & DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM

Kanak Kumar Jain L/H of Partner of M/S. Kesariyaji Filling Station, Udaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Udaipur

ITA 66/JODH/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur01 May 2025AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Lodha (CA)For Respondent: Shri Karni Dan, Addl. CIT
Section 133ASection 148Section 154Section 189(3)Section 234ASection 234CSection 250Section 292BSection 42

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JODHPUR BENCH ‘SMC, JODHPUR BEFORE: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, AM & DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM

Kanak Kumar Jain L/H of Partner of M/S. Kesariyaji Filling Station, Udaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Udaipur

ITA 65/JODH/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur01 May 2025AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Lodha (CA)For Respondent: Shri Karni Dan, Addl. CIT
Section 133ASection 148Section 154Section 189(3)Section 234ASection 234CSection 250Section 292BSection 42

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JODHPUR BENCH ‘SMC, JODHPUR BEFORE: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, AM & DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM

Kanak Kumar Jain L/H of Partner of M/S. Kesariyaji Filling Station, Udaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Udaipur

ITA 64/JODH/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur01 May 2025AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Lodha (CA)For Respondent: Shri Karni Dan, Addl. CIT
Section 133ASection 148Section 154Section 189(3)Section 234ASection 234CSection 250Section 292BSection 42

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JODHPUR BENCH ‘SMC, JODHPUR BEFORE: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, AM & DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM

Kanak Kumar Jain L/H of Partner of M/S. Kesariyaji Filling Station, Udaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Udaipur

ITA 63/JODH/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur01 May 2025AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Lodha (CA)For Respondent: Shri Karni Dan, Addl. CIT
Section 133ASection 148Section 154Section 189(3)Section 234ASection 234CSection 250Section 292BSection 42

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JODHPUR BENCH ‘SMC, JODHPUR BEFORE: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, AM & DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM

Jai Maa Durga Traders, Ballia vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), Income Tax Department

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

ITA 124/ALLD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad01 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Subhash Malguria & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2012-13 Jai Maa Durga Traders, Vs. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Ballia (Appeals), Income Tax Department Pan:Aagfj8468H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Kumar Ankit Srivastava, Adv Revenue By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 01.05.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: [ This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Dated 20.05.2024 Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee. The Grounds Of Appeal Filed By The Assessee Are Detailed & Run Into 16 Pages. Accordingly, For Reasons Of Brevity, The Grounds Of Appeal Are Not Being Reproduced In The Order But The Essence Of The Grounds Are That The Unilateral Order In Question Was Excessive, Illegal & Without Justice & That The Complete Details Of Inward Supplies & Outward Supplies Received By The Assessee In The Relevant Year Had Been Submitted, The Accounts Had Been Audited & Audit Report Uploaded On The Portal. The Firm Had Erroneously Been Allotted A Second Pan In The F.Y. 2011-12 On Application For Duplicate Pan & This Second Pan Had Been Furnished To The Bank While The Itr & Tax Audit Report Had Been Submitted On The Existing Pan. As A Result Of This, An Impression Had Been Created That There Were Unexplained Deposits In The Bank Account But The Fact Is That All The Deposits Were 1 Jai Maa Durga Traders A.Y. 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. Kumar Ankit Srivastava, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 148Section 250Section 44A

found that the assessee had not filed a return of income, he issued a notice under section 148 followed by notices under section 142(1). However, the assessee did not respond to those notices and therefore, the ld. AO completed the assessment as a best judgment assessment. 4. Aggrieved with

Vinod Kumar Jangir, Jhunjhunu vs. Dct, Circle (Intl Tax), Jaipur

Appeal is allowed and the impugned assessment

ITA 779/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumarmr. Vinod Kumar Jangir, C/O. Yashi Super Market, Vishwakarma Complex, Gandhi Chowk, Distt. Jhunjhunu -333001 Pan No. Arzpj 7960G ...... Appellant Vs.

For Appellant: Mr. R. S. Poonia, C.A., Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT, Ld. DR
Section 139(4)Section 144CSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR BENCH “B”, JAIPUR BEFORE SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI NARINDER KUMAR

Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Kota vs. Ram Lal and Sons, Kota

In the result, grounds taken by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 408/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumarito, Ward 2(1), Kota. ...... Appellant Vs.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mrs. Swapnil Parihar, JCIT, Ld. DR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 194HSection 250Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR BENCH “B”, JAIPUR BEFORE SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI NARINDER KUMAR