← 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)

ACIT, Circle-18(2), New Delhi vs. Niit Technologies Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 3559/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 37Section 41Section 68Section 69Section 69ASection 69C

ITA No.3558/Del/2025 & Others INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “G” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI MANISH

ITO, Ward- 6(3), New Delhi vs. Conclusive Traders Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 7317/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Sudhir Pareeka.Yr. : 2009-10 Ito, Ward 6(3), Vs. Conclusive Traders Pvt. Room No. 376A, C.R. Ltd. Building, I.P. Estate, 51/2, D.B. Gupta Road, Karol New Delhi Bagh, New Delhi – 5 (Pan: Aadcc3358B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.04.2025 Order Per Shamim Yahya: Am This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27.09.2017 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-Xxvi, New Delhi In Relation To Assessment Year 2009-10 On The Following Grounds:- I) The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Made U/S 68 Of The Act Amounting To Rs. 2,85,00,000/- Received By The Assesee Company As Unexplained Cash Credit. Ii) The Ld. Cit(A) Has Failed To Prove The Identity, Genuineness & Creditworthiness Of The Transactions As Per Judgement Of Hon’Ble Delhi High Court In Case Of M/S Nova Promoters & Finlease Pvt. Ltd. Where It Was Held That Mere Filing Of Pan No.

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘B’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND SHRI SUDHIR

ACIT, Central Circle- 16, New Delhi vs. York Hotels Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3943/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Prakash Chand Yadav & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2016-17]

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 92C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘H’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI

Pramukh Aranya Developers, Junagadh vs. Pr. CIT, Rajkot-1, Rajkot

In the result, the appeal of the assessee (in ITA No

ITA 372/RJT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot28 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.372 /Rjt/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: (2018-19) M/S. Pramukh Aranya Developers Office No. 5, First Floor, Cit Centre, Opp. New Collector Officer, B/H. Sardar Baug, Junagadh - 362001 The Pr. Cit-1, Vs. Aayakar Bhawan, Race Course Ring Road, Rajkot - 360001 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaofp3393F (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) निर्धारिती की ओर से/Appellant By राजस्व की प्रत्यर्थी ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. Ar : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld.Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: : 04/02/2025 : 28/04/2025 आदेश / Order By Way Of This Appeal, The Assessee Has Challenged The Correctness Of The Order Dated 30.03.2024, Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income- Tax (In Short “Ld Pcit"), Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Act'), For The Assessment Year2018-19.Grievances Raised By The Assessee, Which, Being Interconnected, Will Be Taken Up Together, Are As Follows: M/S. Pramukh Aranya Developers V. Pcit

For Respondent: Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. AR
Section 143(3)Section 22Section 23(5)Section 263

assessing officer conducted sufficient inquiry in respect of issue, pertaining to section 23 of the Act. The assessing officer, issued a notice under section 142(1) of the Act, which is placed in Paper Book Page No. 18 of assessee`s paper book. In response to that the assessee submitted ... current liabilities. iv. Copy of building completion certificate dated 30.01.2017 & 28.06.2017. 15. During the assessment proceedings, the assessing officer issued notice under section 142(1) of the Act dated 10th December 2020, wherein the assessing officer has specially raised the questions, about the issue raised by the learned PCIT

Bapulapadu Sri Rama Hanuman Primary Agricultural Co-Op Society, Bapulapadu vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Gudiwada

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

ITA 157/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble(Through Hybrid Hearing) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.157/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) Bapulapadu Sri Rama Hanuman Vs. Income Tax Officer, Primary Agricultural Coop. Gudiwada. Society, Bapulapadu. Pan: Aadab3431C (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Assessee By : No Representation ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Revenue By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

For Appellant: No RepresentationFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 10ASection 10BSection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 80ASection 80A(5)Section 80P

आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, िवशाखापटणमपीठ, िवशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM “DIVN” BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM "ीिवजयपालराव, उपा"य"एवं"ीएसबालाकृ"णन, लेखासद

Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Thiruvananthapuram vs. Tvm District Mercantile Co-Operative Society, Thiruvananthapuram

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

ITA 702/COCH/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Respondent: Shri Padmanathan K.V
Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH : COCHIN BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K

Kath Brothers, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 77/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anoop Singh, Addl. CIT
Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 234ASection 69

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

DCIT, International Taxation, Jaipur vs. Kavita Chhugani, Jodhpur

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 127/JPR/2025[2018]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Apr 2025

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumar

For Appellant: Mr. Ashish Khandelwal, C.A., Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT, Ld. DR
Section 142(1)Section 144CSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 69Section 69A

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

Lalita Devi Sharma, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-7(1), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1410/JPR/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1410/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2020-21 Lalita Devi Sharma Murlidhar Sharma Dhani Vs. Harsaura, Baskhoh, Jaipur Baskho, Jaipur अपीलार्थी / Appellant बनाम स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: HCPPS 0547 Q प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by: Sh. Rajendra Sisodia, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Mrs. Swapnil Parihar, JCIT-DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hear

For Appellant: Sh. Rajendra Sisodia, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Swapnil Parihar, JCIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

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

Rohitji Chanduji Thakor, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(2) (Previously Ward-3(3)(4)), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 26/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 271ASection 69A

Rohitji Chanduji Thakor vs. ITO Page 2 of 4 was also served upon the assessee on 25.09.2019 by Speed Post. Thereafter, notice under section 142(1) of the Act was also issued alongwith questionnaire on 23.05.2019, 04.07.2019, 22.07.2019 & 05.08.2019 through ITBA calling information which was also served upon the assessee

Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society Limited Chinna Golkonda, Shamshabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-8(1), Hyderabad

ITA 1262/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Us:

For Appellant: Mrs. S. SandhyaFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna – CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 80P

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

Kool Kidz Products Limited, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 4(4), Kolkata

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

ITA 2362/KOL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Apr 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey&Shri Rakesh Mishra]

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 40Section 68

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

Income Tax Officer, Ward-27(1), Haldia, Aayakr Bhavan vs. Contai Co-Operative Agriculture and Rural Development Bank Limited, Vill-Contai, Purba Medinipur

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1809/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey&Shri Rakesh Mishra]

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

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

Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 27(1), Aaykar Bhavan, Haldia vs. Contai Co-Operative Agriculture and Rural Development Bank Limited., Contai, Purba Medinipur

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1731/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey&Shri Rakesh Mishra]

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

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

Asok Sparks, Virudhunagar vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Virudhunagar

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

ITA 93/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 93/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Asok Sparks, The Acit, 468, Pks Arumugandar Road, Circle 1, Vs. Sivakasi, Virudhunagar. Virudhunagar – 626 189. [Pan: Aaufa-8489-K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘सी’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी मनु कुमार िग"र

Sargunam, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-12(1), Chennai

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

ITA 547/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr.Abishek Murali, C.A ""For Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘सी’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी मनु कुमार िग"र

Abdulmujib Amanulaa, Coimbatore vs. ITO, Ward-1, Coimbatore

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

ITA 534/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr. Anandd Babunath, F.C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 144

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘सी’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी मनु कुमार िग"र

Sushiladevi Vijaykumar Yadav, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 42 (1)(5), Mumbai

In the result appeal file by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 950/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R. Singh a/wFor Respondent: Shri Srinivas P., Ld. Sr. D.R
Section 142(1)Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2017

Nuvama Wealth Management Limited, Bandra East, Mumbai vs. Deputy Comissioner of Income Tax, Cgo Building, Mumbai

ITA 480/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Section 1Section 115JSection 14A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VP & MS PADMAVATHY S, AM I.T.A. No.479/Mum/2025

Nuvama Wealth Management Limited, Bandra East, Mumbai vs. Deputy Comissioner of Income Tax, Cgo Building, Mumbai

ITA 479/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui- Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 14A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VP & MS PADMAVATHY S, AM I.T.A. No.479/Mum/2025