← 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)

Marie Products Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 7, Jaipur

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

ITA 771/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Ajay Malik, CIT
Section 14Section 142(1)Section 143(3)

scented betel nut (supari). Return was filed declaring total income of Rs 18,86,090/-. The Assessing Officer (“AO”) issued notice under section 142(1) dated 21 January 2021 seeking certain information. Reply was filed by the Appellant vide submissions dated 4 February 2021 (PB 1-12) and 2 March

Bhoopram Sharma, Panchkula vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward No.1, Panchkula

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

ITA 860/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rishab Gupta, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 270ASection 271ASection 272A(1)(d)Section 69A

under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was issued on 28.09.2018, scheduling a hearing for 04.10.2018. Subsequently, a notice under section 142(1) with a questionnaire was issued on 29.07.2019, fixing a hearing for 07.08.2019. Additional notices were issued on 13.08.2019, 11.10.2019, and a show-cause notice

M/S L.B.Wines Private Limitted, Ludhiana vs. Pr.CIT-1, Ludhiana

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 84/CHANDI/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.84/Chandi/2021 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) M/S L.B.Wines Private Ltd. Pr Cit-I B-1, 1446/13A Aaykar Bhawan, बनाम/ Chhoti Haibowal Rishi Nagar Vs. Ludhiana-141001. Ludhiana-141001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Jldlo-0809-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : S/Shri Ashwani Kumar&Aditya Kumar (Ca) & Ms. Muskan Garg (Ca) – Ld. Ars ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Rohit Sharma – Ld. Cit-Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13-03-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21-04-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. By Way Of This Appeal, The Assessee Assails Invocation Of Revisionary Jurisdiction U/S 263 By Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ludhiana-1 (Pr.Cit) For Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16 Vide Impugned Order Dated 23-03-2021 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Ao U/S.143(3) Of The Act On 22-12-2017. 2. The Ld. Ar Advanced Arguments & Made Out A Case Of One Of The Possible Views. The Ld. Cit-Dr Also Advanced Arguments & Submitted That Ld. Ao Failed To Make Requisite Enquiries On The Issues

For Appellant: S/Shri Ashwani Kumar&Aditya Kumar (CA) and Ms. Muskan Garg (CA) – Ld. ARsFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma – Ld. CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 194ISection 263

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT AND HON

TDS Management Consultants P.Ltd., Mohali vs. Pr.CIT-1, Chandigarh

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 62/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.62/Chandi/2021 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Tds Management Consultant Pvt. Ltd. Pr. Cit E-193, Phase 8-B, Mohali, Aaykar Bhawan, बनाम/ Vs. Punjab - 160071 Sector 17, Chandigarh-1. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacct-5653-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, (Ca) & Ms. Shruti Khandelwal(Adv) – Ld. Ars ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Kusum Bansal(Cit)– Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26-03-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21-04-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. By Way Of This Appeal, The Assessee Assails Invocation Of Revisionary Jurisdiction U/S 263 By Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chandigarh-1 (Pr.Cit) For Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Ao U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 22-12- 2018. The Ld. Ar Advanced Arguments With The Help Of Various Documents As Placed On Record. The Ld. Cit-Dr Justified Impugned Revision Of The Assessment Order.

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, (CA) and Ms. Shruti Khandelwal(Adv) – Ld. ARsFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal(CIT)– Ld. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 194JSection 263

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT AND HON

Assistant Commissioner of Incometax, Exemptions, Circle, Pune vs. Shree Warana Vibhag Shikshan Mandal, Warnanagar

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 987/PUN/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Apr 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari
Section 11Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 144Section 80G

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “बी” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA

Shrikant Chandrakant Lokhande, Latur vs. ITO, Ward-1, Latur

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

ITA 2696/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2696/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Ganesh Vijaykumar PawarFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Manish Sinha
Section 115BSection 139Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 156Section 208Section 234B(1)Section 249Section 249(4)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “B”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL

Bhujbal Brothers Construction Company, Pune vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1(3), Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 2137/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Respondent: Shri Chandra Vijay &
Section 142Section 142(1)Section 144Section 43C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune vs. Bhujbal Brothers Construction Company, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 2119/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Respondent: Shri Chandra Vijay &
Section 142Section 142(1)Section 144Section 43C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

Mr. Ashwin Rajendra Bade, Kolhapur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle, Kolhapur

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

ITA 1892/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita. No.1892/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Bhuvanesh KankaniFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath Murkunde
Section 115BSection 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271ASection 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “A”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Ichalkaranji vs. Sanjay Ghodawat Buildcon LLP, Chipri

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

ITA 1337/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1337/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Arvind DesaiFor Respondent: Shri Prashanth GS
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 263Section 40Section 46A(3)Section 57

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “B”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL

Shivaji Laxman Sahane, Nashik vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1, Nashik

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1078/PUN/2024[A.Y. 2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Apr 2025

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1078/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S.ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

reasonable cause failed to comply with a notice under section 22(4)/23(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 or under section 142(1)/143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. o have concealed the particulars of your Income or particulars of such income. Furnished inaccurate

Meenamani Ganga Builder LLP, Pune vs. PCIT (Central), Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1027/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1027/Pun/2024

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153DSection 263Section 263(1)Section 68

सत्यमेव जयते IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “A”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY

Bolpur Krishija Bipanan Smabayan Samity Limited, Bolpur vs. ACIT, Cir. 3, Birbhum

ITA 400/KOL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member), SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dilip Chatterjee, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sailen Samadder, Addl. CIT-Sr. DR
Section 131Section 142(1)Section 145(3)Section 68

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, “ए” न्यायपीठ, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT

Sen Ferro Alloys (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., CC - 4(3), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2376/KOL/2024[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Apr 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Somnath GhoshFor Respondent: Ms. MadhumitaDas, Addl.CIT
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 69C

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,“एस.एम.सी” "यायपीठ,कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE

DCIT, Muzaffarnagar vs. M/S. Mittal Construction Unit, Muzaffarnagar

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and CO filed by the assessee is partly allowed as stated above

ITA 3752/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Kumar Jain, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER and SHRIS.RIFAUR

Selvi, Trichy vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(2), Trichy

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

ITA 119/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 119/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ms. Selvi, The Income Tax Officer, 30, North Street, Ward 1(2), Rockfort, Vs. Trichy. Trichy – 620 002. Pan: Aljps 2284C (""यथ"/Respondent) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri P. Thangaraj, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Anitha, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03.04.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21.04.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.R. Raghunatha, Am: This Appeal Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi Dated 19.11.2024 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- I. The Order Of The Learned Assessment Officer Is Against The Law, Weightage Of Evidence & All Probabilities Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri P. Thangaraj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl.CIT

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी मनु कुमार

Danayya Hiremath, Near Post Office Navanagar Bagalkota vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 & Tps, Bagalkot, Aayakar Bhavan

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

ITA 48/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Sri Siddesh Gaddi, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Srinandini Das, D.R
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69

ITA No.48/Bang/2025 Mr. Danayya Hiremath, Bagalkot IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT

M/S. Bharat Beedi Works Private Limited, Mangaluru vs. Deputy Commisioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 2, Mangaluru

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for all the four A

ITA 645/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Respondent: Shri E. Shridhar, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

also filed before Learned Ad.CIT) and 12.07.2021 in Page 10 of 74 ITA Nos. 642 to 645/Bang/2024 reply to the notice under Section 142(1) dated 02.07.2021. 9.6. Without prejudice, the Learned AO erred in selectively using the revised return to his convenience by adopting pick and choose ... belated return filed on 09.02.2021 when making such addition was objected vide Appellant’s letter dated 12.07.2021 in reply to the notice under Section 142(1) dated 02.07.2021. 10.5. Without prejudice, the Learned AO erred in selectively using the belated return to his convenience by adopting pick and choose

M/S. Bharat Beedi Works Private Limited, Mangaluru vs. Deputy Commisioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 2, Mangaluru

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for all the four A

ITA 644/BANG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Respondent: Shri E. Shridhar, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

also filed before Learned Ad.CIT) and 12.07.2021 in Page 10 of 74 ITA Nos. 642 to 645/Bang/2024 reply to the notice under Section 142(1) dated 02.07.2021. 9.6. Without prejudice, the Learned AO erred in selectively using the revised return to his convenience by adopting pick and choose ... belated return filed on 09.02.2021 when making such addition was objected vide Appellant’s letter dated 12.07.2021 in reply to the notice under Section 142(1) dated 02.07.2021. 10.5. Without prejudice, the Learned AO erred in selectively using the belated return to his convenience by adopting pick and choose

M/S. Bharat Beedi Works Private Limited, Mangaluru vs. Deputy Commisioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 2, Mangaluru

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for all the four A

ITA 643/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Respondent: Shri E. Shridhar, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

also filed before Learned Ad.CIT) and 12.07.2021 in Page 10 of 74 ITA Nos. 642 to 645/Bang/2024 reply to the notice under Section 142(1) dated 02.07.2021. 9.6. Without prejudice, the Learned AO erred in selectively using the revised return to his convenience by adopting pick and choose ... belated return filed on 09.02.2021 when making such addition was objected vide Appellant’s letter dated 12.07.2021 in reply to the notice under Section 142(1) dated 02.07.2021. 10.5. Without prejudice, the Learned AO erred in selectively using the belated return to his convenience by adopting pick and choose