← 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 Central Circle 8(2) Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Mukesh D Ambani, Mumbai

In the result, all the cross objections filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 5140/MUM/2024[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2025AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Vora and Ms. Moksha Mehta, ARsFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT DR
Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT

DCIT Central Circle 8(2) Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Mukesh D Ambani, Mumbai

ITA 5123/MUM/2024[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Vora andFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT DR
Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT

DCIT Central Circle 8(2) Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Mukesh D Ambani, Mumbai

In the result, all the cross objections filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 5121/MUM/2024[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2025AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Vora and Ms. Moksha Mehta, ARsFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT DR
Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT

ACIT Central Circle 8(2) Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Mukesh D Ambani, Mumbai

ITA 5118/MUM/2024[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Vora andFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT DR
Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT

ACIT Central Circle 8(2) Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Mukesh D Ambani, Mumbai

In the result, all the cross objections filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 5117/MUM/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Vora and Ms. Moksha Mehta, ARsFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT DR
Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT

Asia Investment Corporation (Mauritius) Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Int Taxation)1(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee for both the years under consideration stands partly allowed

ITA 2766/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Ms. Padmavathy S ()

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(1)(b)Section 69Section 74

which notice under section 148 of the act was issued on 23/06/2022 for assessment years 2016-17 and 2017-18. Subsequently notice under section 142(1) was issued on 06/02/2023 under section 143 (2) was issued on 15/05/2023, along with the show cause notice dated 18/05/2023. 2.3. The main allegation

Asia Investment Corporation (Mauritius ) Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Int Tax)-1(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee for both the years under consideration stands partly allowed

ITA 2765/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Ms. Padmavathy S ()

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(1)(b)Section 69Section 74

which notice under section 148 of the act was issued on 23/06/2022 for assessment years 2016-17 and 2017-18. Subsequently notice under section 142(1) was issued on 06/02/2023 under section 143 (2) was issued on 15/05/2023, along with the show cause notice dated 18/05/2023. 2.3. The main allegation

Vishwa Glass and Ceramics Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. DCIT, Circle-3(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2547/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri K.C. ThackerFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Umap, CIT-DR
Section 127(2)Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

income. After considering the details and submissions filed by the assessee, in response to the statutory notices issued under section 143(2) and section 142(1) of the Act, the Assessing Officer (“AO”) vide order dated 29.03.2022 passed under section 147 r.w.s 144B of the Act assessed the total income ... proceeded under section 147 of the Act were initiated. We find that during the re-assessment proceedings, vide notice dated 23.03.2022 issued under section 142(1) of the Act, the assessee was asked to furnish the following details:- "In connection with the re-opened assessment proceedings in your own case

Vishwa Glass and Ceramics Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. DCIT, Circle-3(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2546/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri K.C. ThackerFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Umap, CIT-DR
Section 127(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

return of income declaring similar income as originally returned. Subsequently, in response to the statutory notices issued under section 143(2) and section 142(1) of the Act, the assessee filed its submissions along with other supporting documents. In the absence of any documentary evidence to support the genuineness

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sukriti Information Systems (P) Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee

ITA 1991/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri Vikash Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)

ITA Nos.- 1515-17 & 1991-17 Sukriti Information system P. Ltd. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH: ‘G

Raj Kumar, Chapra vs. ITO, Ward- 2(2), Chapra

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 351/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna30 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.351/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Raj Kumar………………………….....…..…………………....Appellant Mohalla – Gudari Bazar, Bhagwan Bazar, Daulatganj, Chapra (Saran), Bihar-841301. [Pan: Cikpk8268A] Vs. Ito, Ward-2(2), Chapra....….…….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kumar, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 27, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 30, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 15.12.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. No One Has Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee In Spite Of Serving Consecutive Notices Of Hearing & The Tribunal Cannot Keep This Appeal Pending For Indefinite Time Due To Non-Representation. Therefore, In The Absence Of Any Authorised Representative Of The Assessee, We Proceed To Decide The Appeal With The Help Of Ld. Dr & Also Considering The Material Available On Record. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Engaged In Fish Marketing. The Assessee Deposited A Sum Of

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 250(6)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “PATNA BENCH, PATNA VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA Before Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member and

ITO Ward 2(1), Nagpur, Civil Lines vs. Datamatic System Pvt. Ltd., Nagpur

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 579/NAG/2024[2013]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur30 Jan 2025

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI KHETTRA MOHAN

ITO Ward 2(1), Nagpur, Civil Lines Nagpur vs. Datamatic System Pvt. Ltd., Nagpur

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 577/NAG/2024[2015]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur30 Jan 2025

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI KHETTRA MOHAN

Income Tax Officer WD 2(1), Civil Lines vs. Datamatic System Pvt. Ltd, Nagpur

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 576/NAG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur30 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI KHETTRA MOHAN

DCIT, Circle -6, Jaipur, Ncrb vs. Ascent Buildhome Developers Limited, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 846/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jan 2025AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Sh. Jitendra Wadhwa, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR डा० एस. सीतालक्ष्मी, न्यायिक

Zora Singh, Fatehgarh Sahib vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - Sirhind, Sirhind

Appeal of the assessee is allowed as and

ITA 669/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: This Tribunal. The Assessee Is Aggrieved

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Addl.CIT DR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 253Section 68

Axis Bank during the demonetization period from 09.11.2016 to 31.12.2016 whereas the return of income was not filed. 2.3 That a notice under Section 142(1) of the Act was issued by ld. AO on 16.08.2019 to the assessee requiring the assessee to file return of income on or before ... assessee for the above referred period was obtained by invoking the provisions of Section 133(6) of the Act. Accordingly, notice under Section 142(1) of the Act alongwith letter providing the assessee opportunity of being heard and requiring the assessee to show cause as to why assessment

Sshri Kuldip Singh, Chandigarh vs. Pr.CIT-1, Chandigarh

In the result, appeal of Assessee is allowed

ITA 103/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Paresh M. Joshiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 103/Chd/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shri Kuldeep Singh, Vs. The Pr. Cit-1, 2010, बनाम Chandigarh Sec 21-C, Chandigarh "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Bllps7083L अपीलाथ"/ Assessee ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Ajay Jain, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Rohit Sharma, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 03.12.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30.01.2025 आदेश/Order Per Paresh M. Joshi, Jm : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee U/S 253 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Herein Referred To As ‘The Act’] Before This Tribunal. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By The Order Bearing No. Itba/Rev/F/ Revs/ 250 /2020-21/1031467646 (1) Dated 14.03.2021 Of Ld. Pcit, Chandigarh-1 Passed U/S 263 Of The Act. The Relevant A.Y.

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 253Section 263

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ, च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH, ‘A’, CHANDIGARH

Tulsi Reality, Vadodara vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Vadodara

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 134/AHD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.134/Ahd/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Tulsi Reality The Pr.Cit-1 बनाम/ G5 Anand Deep Complex Vadodara – 390 007 V/S. Gotri Road (Gujarat) Gotri, Vadodara – 390 021 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aafft 8908 B (अपीलाथ&/ Appellant) ('( यथ&/ Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Urvashi Shodhan, Ar Revenue By : Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/01/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 29.03.2022 Passed By The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vadodara-1 (Hereinafter Referred To As "Pcit") Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017- 18, Setting Aside The Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ao”) Under Section 143(3) Of The Act Dated 12.12.2019. Tulsi Reality Vs. The Pr.Cit-1 Asst. Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Ms. Urvashi Shodhan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 131Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 269SSection 271DSection 37(1)

compulsory scrutiny and a notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 20.09.2018, followed by a notice under Section 142(1) of the Act. A survey under Section 133A of the Act was conducted at the premises of the assessee on 30.08.2016. During the survey, the assessee ... properly inquired into by the AO. The assessee also failed to place on record its reply to the notice under Section 142(1) dated 10-10-2019. The AO is also silent on this reply in the order and has not recorded his satisfaction or otherwise on the issue raised

Shaikh Samim, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 50(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2234/KOL/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Jan 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 10ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 192Section 40ASection 40a

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ “ए’’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH: KOLKATA "ी राजेश कुमार

Abhishek Bhutra, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-38, Midnapore, Midnapur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 242/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Gargi.T.A No.242/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Abhishek Bhutra..….…....………………………… ........................……Appellant C/O S. N. Ghosh & Associates, Advocate 2, Garstin Place, 2Nd Floor, Suite No.203, Off Hare Street, Kol-1. [Pan: Ahupb6924D] Vs. Acit, Circle-38, Midnapore...............…................…........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Manas Mondal, Addl. Cit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 23, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 30, 2025 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 14.02.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Is Aggrieved By The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Confirming The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer Of Rs.32,76,000/- On Account Of Unexplained Cash Deposits In Bank Account Of The Assessee Treating The Same As Income Of The Assessee From Undisclosed Sources. The Assessee, An Individual, Was Engaged In Wholesale Dealing In Mobile Handsets Of Different Companies Under The Name & Style Of “Ub Starcom”. The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income U/S 139(1) Of The Act On 01.11.2017 Disclosing A Total Income At Rs.15,34,300/- For The Assessment Year Under Dispute. The Notice U/S

Section 120Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

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