← 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)

Income Tax Officer, Vizianagaram vs. Vijayanagaram Wheat Products Private Limited, Kondakarakam

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 312/VIZ/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam06 Feb 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble

Section 115JSection 139(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

expense of Rs.46,94,94,896/- to the entities which are not registered under GST. In this connection Ld. AO issued notice under section 142(1) dated 06.02.2024. Assessee filed its response on 13.02.2024 stating that there was a data entry error in Sr. No. 44 of Form 3CD while

Anil Kumar Purushothamannair, Pathanamthitta vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Thiruvalla

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

ITA 867/COCH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Sri.Stephen George, CCIT(Retd.)For Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Senior AR
Section 142(1)Section 144o

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Accountant Member ITA No.867/Coch/2024 : Asst.Year 2017

Rufus Antony Joseph, Thiruvanathapuram vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Trivandrum

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

ITA 688/COCH/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Senior AR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 43B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Accountant Member ITA No.683/Coch/2024 : Asst.Year 2006

Rufus Antony Joseph, Thiruvanathapuram vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Trivandrum

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

ITA 687/COCH/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 Feb 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Senior AR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 43B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Accountant Member ITA No.683/Coch/2024 : Asst.Year 2006

Rufus Antony Joseph, Thiruvananthapuram vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Trivandrum

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

ITA 686/COCH/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 Feb 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Senior AR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 43B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Accountant Member ITA No.683/Coch/2024 : Asst.Year 2006

Rufus Antony Joseph, Thiruvananthapuram vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Trivandrum

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

ITA 685/COCH/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 Feb 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Senior AR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 43B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Accountant Member ITA No.683/Coch/2024 : Asst.Year 2006

Rufus Antony Joseph, Thiruvanathapuram vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Trivandrum

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

ITA 684/COCH/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 Feb 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Senior AR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 43B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Accountant Member ITA No.683/Coch/2024 : Asst.Year 2006

Rufus Antony Joseph, Thiruvananthapuram vs. DCIT Central Circle-1, Thiruvananthapuram

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

ITA 683/COCH/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 Feb 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Senior AR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 43B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Accountant Member ITA No.683/Coch/2024 : Asst.Year 2006

Mangu Singh, Bhiwadi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-Bhiwadi, Bhiwadi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1466/JPR/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Feb 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Gagan Goyalmangu Singh, Vpo- Mirchuni, Tapukara, Bhiwadi, Alwar – 301 019 Pan No. Eifps8255E ...... Appellant Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward – Bhiwadi …... Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. Manoj Kumar, JCIT, Ld. DR
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 251Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR BENCH “A”, JAIPUR BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL

Nanda Filling Station, Sirhind vs. ITO, Ward, Sirhind

ITA 547/CHANDI/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: This Tribunal. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By The Order Bearing

For Appellant: Shri Manjit Singh Sarao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shakti Singh, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 144(1)(b)Section 246ASection 250Section 253

existence since 05.11.2013 and hence the firm filed no return of income after dissolution of partnership firm. That no notice under Section 142(1) of the Act was received by the firm or surviving partner. The Department of Income Tax failed to verify that firm’s PAN No. AAJFN2253R after

DCIT, Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad vs. Smt. Denisha Rajendra Keshwani, Ahmedabad

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 39/AHD/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.39/Ahd/2021 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2015-16 The Dcit Smt. Denisha Rajendra बनाम/ Central Circle-1(1) Keshwani V/S. Ahmedabad – 380 009 44, Asopalav Bungalows Nr.Muktidham Temple Thaltej, Ahmedabad – 380 054 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Ahzpk 0889 K (अपीलाथ$/ Appellant) (%& यथ$/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mehul K. Patel, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/02/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], Dated 22.01.2021, For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16, Wherein The Cit(A) Has Deleted The Addition Of Rs.1,17,78,534/- Made Under Section 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”] By The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle – 1(1), Dcit Vs. Smt. Denisha Rajendra Keshwani Asst. Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.DR
Section 127Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

Ahmedabad, vide order No. Pr.CIT- 3/Centralization/Amrapali Group/2014-15, dated 14.11.2014. Subsequently, due to a change in the incumbent officer, fresh notices under Section 142(1) of the Act were issued on 05.09.2017 and 27.10.2017. 3. During the scrutiny proceedings, the Assessing Officer (AO) observed that the assessee had declared Long Term ... Gain (LTCG) of Rs.1,40,06,685/-, arising from investments in various shares, including Kappac Pharma Ltd. (KPL). The AO issued notices under Section 142(1) of the Act dated 05.09.2017 and 13.09.2017, seeking details and documentary evidence for the LTCG claim. The assessee submitted the required details vide submission

Mr. Balasaheb Bhagwantrao Patil, Osmanabad vs. ITO, Ward, Osmanabad, Latur

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

ITA 2819/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2819/Pun/2024 धििाारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Mr. Balasaheb Bhagwantrao Vs Ito, Ward, Patil, Osmanabad, Latur 41 B Patil Nivas, A/P Hadongri Taluka Bhoom, Osmanabad-413501, Maharashtra Pan-Abjpp6358E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Bhuvanesh V KankaniFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhivare
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 46Section 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण "एस एम सी" न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "SMC" BENCH, PUNE BEFORE Dr

Jyoti Santosh Parakh, Sangamner vs. ITO, Ward 2, Ahmednagar

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

ITA 2450/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manish Boradassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Piyush Bafna (through virtual)For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhivare, Addl. CIT
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250(6)Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2017-18

Shailesh Parshuram Pavar, Nijampur vs. ITO Ward - 5 Panvel, Trifred Tower

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

ITA 1809/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manish Boradassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Rushikesh KashyapFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhivare, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 250(6)Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2013-14

DCIT., Circle-2(1), Hyderabad vs. Team Universal Infratech Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, ITA.No.970/Hyd

ITA 969/HYD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Feb 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri Mohd. Afzal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 201

1 ITA.Nos.969 & 970/Hyd/2024 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD “A” BENCH : HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Vakula Tirunagari, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-9(3), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1153/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1153/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Smt. Vakula Tirunagari Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 9(3) Pan:Agjpt8158M Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Anil Kumar, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 04/02/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 06/02/2025 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar, CAFor Respondent: : Dr. Sachin Kumar, DR
Section 142(1)Section 144

ITA No 1153 of 2024 Vakula Tirunagari आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

M/S. Merino Industries Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 12(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 292/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A No.174/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Circle-12(1), Kolkata…………………….................................……Revenue Vs. M/S Merino Industries Ltd.…………....................................……...…..…..Assessee 5, Alexandra Court, 60/1, Chowringhee Road, Kolkata – 700020. [Pan: Aaacc9186C] I.T.A No.292/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Merino Industries Ltd …………………….…….......................…… Assessee 5, Alexandra Court, 60/1, Chowringhee Road, Kolkata – 700020. [Pan: Aaacc9186C] Vs. Dcit, Circle-12(1), Kolkata.…….................................……....…........….. Revenue Appearances By: Shri Shyam Sundar Jha, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Prakash Nath Barnwal, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 12, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 06, 2025 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Are Cross-Appeals, One By The Assessee & The Other By The Revenue Against The Common Order Dated 09.10.2018 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). Since The Facts & Issued Involved In Both The Appeals Are Identical & Both The Appeals Are Arising Out Of The Same

Section 2(22)Section 250Section 801A

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ ‘, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH KOLKATA Before Shri Sanjay

DCIT, Circle - 12(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Merino Industries Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 174/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 2(22)Section 250Section 801A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, कोलकाता पीठ ', कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH KOLKATA Before Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial

Mangla International Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-3(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the

ITA 1913/MUM/2024[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Feb 2025AY 2003-04
For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Date of Hearing – 12/11/2024
Section 115Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250

notice under section 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee on 13/12/2005. Thereafter, statutory notices under section 143(2) and section 142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee. The assessee, vide letter dated 16/06/2006, raised the objections against the reopening of assessment

Mangla International Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-3(2)(2), Mumbai

ITA 1912/MUM/2024[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Feb 2025AY 2002-03
For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Date of Hearing – 12/11/2024
Section 115Section 143Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J (SMC)” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFOREMs. PADMAVATHY S., ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL