← 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)

Madhusudan Marotrao Mude, Nagpur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1(2), Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 132/NAG/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur29 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 132Section 132(4)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.M. ROY

The Pazhambalacode Service Co-Operative Bank Limited No P 492, Palakkad vs. ITO, Ward 5, Palakkad

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

ITA 347/COCH/2024[A.Y 2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Jan 2025

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm Assessment Year: 2011-12 The Pazhambalacode Service .......... Appellant Co-Op. Bank Ltd. Pazhambalacode P.O. Alathur Taluk, Palakkad 678544 [Pan: Aaaap4158K] Vs. The Income Tax Officer - 5 .......... Respondent Aayakar Bhavan, English Chruch Road Palakkad 670014

For Appellant: Shri Amaljith, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 80P

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM AND SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV, JM

Anil Kumar Prop. Ms Kk Agro Industries Loha Bazar, Ahmedgarh, Punjab vs. Jatin Abbi the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-3, Ludhiana, Punjab

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 752/CHANDI/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh29 Jan 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 752/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21 Anil Kumar Prop. The Dcit, M/S K K Agro Industries, बनाम Central Circle-3, Loha Bazar, Ludhiana Vs. Ahmedgarh

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 69

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

The Janseva Trust, Godhra vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(1)(2), Vadodara (Now Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Godhra)

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, subject to the above directions

ITA 851/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.851/Ahd/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 The Janseva Trust The Ito बनाम/ Opp. Gyandeep School Ward-4(1)(1)(2), Vadodara V/S. Nr.Jivanlal Hospital (Now Ito, Ward-1, Godhra – 389 001 (Gujarat) Godhra – 389 001) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaatt 2888 D (अपीलाथ$/ Appellant) (%& यथ$/ Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Nikhita Bhamblani & Amrin Pathan, Ars Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/01/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], Dated 29.08.2023, For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2017-18. The Said Appeal Arises From The Assessment Order Passed By The Income Tax Officer (Ito), Ward 4(1)(2), Vadodara [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ao”], Under Section 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act)”], On 24.12.2019. The Janseva Trust Vs. Ito Asst. Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Ms. Nikhita Bhamblani &For Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.DR
Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

Janseva Trust vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2017-18 2.1. The AO issued multiple notices under Sections 142(1) and 133(6) of the Act to the assessee, requiring the assessee to file its return of income for the A.Y. 2017-18 and an explanation regarding the nature and source ... observed that the assessee failed to file its return of income for the A.Y. 2017-18 despite being served with a notice under Section 142(1) of the Act. The CIT(A) noted that the assessee failed to provide specific, satisfactory evidence to substantiate the nature and source

Shekhar Bajirao Bhilare, Mahabaleshwar vs. I.T.O Ward-4, Satara

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

ITA 158/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, Addl CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS. ASTHA

Srl Construction Pvt Ltd, Jalna vs. ACIT, Central Circle 2, Aurangabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 847/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jan 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.847/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Srl Construction Pvt. Ltd., V The Acit, 197, Khasgaon, Jafrabad, S Central Circle-2, Jalna – 444203. Aurangabad. Pan: Aaqcs7227L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Prateekjha – Ar Revenue By Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 16/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 29/01/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr.Dipak P.Ripote, Am : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax(Central)-Nagpur, Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; Dated 08.03.2024 For A.Y.2019-20. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. A) On The Facts & Circumstance Prevailing In The Case & In Law, Honorable Pr. Cit (Central), Nagpur Has Erred In Not Considering The Submission Made By The Appellant In Fair And

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(3)

same. This aspect has not been verified by the Assessing Officer. We have verified the notices issued by the Assessing Officer under section 142(1) of the Act and noted that no question on this particular issue has been asked. Thus, Assessing Officer has failed to carry out enquiry ... discussed by us in earlier paragraphs i.e.Para 4.8 & 4.9, Ground No.5 is dismissed. 8. Ground No.6 - We have perused the notices issued under section 142(1) and submission made by Assessee.Ld.AR has also accepted during the hearing that no enquiry was conducted by the Assessing Officer regarding cash purchases

Chotelal Mewalal Gupta, Sindhudurg vs. Income Tax Officer, Kudal

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

ITA 2603/PUN/2024[AY 2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jan 2025

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2603/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2013-14

For Respondent: Assessee by Shri Pramod S. Shingte
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 44ASection 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL

Indian Magic Eye Private Limited, Pune vs. ITO, Pune

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

ITA 1579/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Arun PatankarFor Respondent: Shri Chandra Vijay
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 270

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

Indian Magic Eye Private Limited, Pune vs. ITO, Pune

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

ITA 1578/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Arun PatankarFor Respondent: Shri Chandra Vijay
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 270

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

Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Panvel, Panvel Dist. Raigad vs. Shaileshkumar Dineshbhai Patel, Tal. Mhasala

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

ITA 1353/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Subodh RatnaparkhiFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, Addl CIT-DR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS. ASTHA

Skill Promoters Holding and Leasing Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 370/HYD/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Jan 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.370/Hyd/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S Skill Promoters Vs. Pcit (Central) Holding & Leasing Hyderabad Private Limited Hyderabad [Pan : Aascs8012P] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao,Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri B.Bala Krishna,Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 07/01/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 29/01/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 23.06.2023 Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central) (Ld.Pcit), Hyderabad, Pertaining To A.Y.2019-20 On The Following Grounds : 1. The Order Passed U/S 263 Of The Act Dated 23.06.2023 Is Erroneous Both On Facts & In Law. 2. The Ld.Pr.Cit Erred In Holding That The Assessment Order Dated 26.09.2021 Passed U/S 153A Is Erroneous In So 2

For Appellant: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao,ARFor Respondent: Shri B.Bala Krishna,CIT-DR
Section 127Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 263Section 37

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘A’ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri Vijay Pal Rao

Reshma Sabir Khan, Andheri West, Mumbai vs. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, 24(3)(1), Mumbai, Piramal Chamber

In the result, all the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4880/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 69A

DIN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘D’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Pankaj Dahyabhai Shah, Palghar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Palghar

ITA 3622/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosainvs. Acit, Aayakr Bhavan, Pankaj Dahyabhai Shah Bidco Road, Palghar Flat No. 103, Saraswati Apt – 401404. Kunti Part, Ambaji Road, Tal Palghar, Dist – 401404. Pan/Gir No. Adyps0893A (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 143(2)Section 250

Ward(1) Palghar. However, ultimately the order of assessment was framed by a ACIT Palghar circle who had only issued notice under section 142(1) of the Act dated 14.05.2018, but had not issued mandatory notice u/s 143(2) of the Act. Even at the time of transfer

Sahara India Mutual Benefit Coy vs. DCIT CC VI

In the result, the captioned appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 1831/DEL/2007[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jan 2025AY 1999-2000

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraa.Y. 2013-14 A.Y. 2014-15 A.Y. 2015-16 A.Y. 2016-17 A.Y. 2017-18 A.Y. 2019-20 A.Y. 2018-19

Section 24Section 263Section 263(1)

1 ITA Nos. 1822 to 1835/Del/2024 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F”: NEW DELHI BEFORE Ms. MADHUMITA

Chand Khan, Sada Shiv Nagar vs. ITO Ward 1(2), City Center

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

ITA 109/AGR/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Agra28 Jan 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 144Section 147

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA (SMC) BENCH, AGRA BEFORE : SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2012-13

Cofre Do Fundo Da Cruz Al to De, Bambolim vs. Income Tax Officer, (Exemption) Ward - 1, Panaji

The appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 203/PAN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji28 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliassessment Year : 2017-18 Cofre Do Fundo Da Cruz Alto De Bambolim 101/1, Holy Cross Shrine, Bambolim Gmc Complex, Bambolim, Goa-403202 Pan:Aabtc0675N . . . . . . . Appellant V/S The Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward-1, Panaji. . . . . . . . Respondent

For Appellant: Smt Pratibha R [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Narendra Reddy [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 11Section 119(2)(b)Section 12A(1)(b)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 246A(1)Section 250Section 253(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PANAJI BENCH, PANAJI BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI

Sameer Manohar Fulari, Mapusa vs. Assessing Officer, NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 201/PAN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji28 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. Nos. 201/Pan/2023 (A.Y. 2018-19 ) Sameer Manohar Fulari, Vs National Faceless Near Bank Of India,Keni Assessment . Waddo,Mapusa Bardez, Centre,Nfac,Delhi. Noth Goa-403507 . Goa. Pan .No. Aaopf3440P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 144Section 249(4)(b)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PANAJI BENCH PANAJI BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI G D PADMAHSHALI

Gopalapillai Sreekumar, Sooranad, Kunnathoor vs. Income Tax Officer, Central Circle-2, Bbn, Central Circle-II

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 47/CTK/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalita No.45 45/Ctk/2025: Assessment Year : Assessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Subit Kumar SahuFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 171(1)(b)Section 271(1)(b)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH

Gopalapillai Sreekumar, Sooranad, Kollam, Kerala vs. Income Tax Officer, Central Circle-II, Bbn

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 46/CTK/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalita No.45 45/Ctk/2025: Assessment Year : Assessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Subit Kumar SahuFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 171(1)(b)Section 271(1)(b)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH

Gopalapillai Sreekumar, Kollam, Kerala vs. Income Tax Officer, Central Circle-2, Central Circle-II

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 45/CTK/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalita No.45 45/Ctk/2025: Assessment Year : Assessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Subit Kumar SahuFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 171(1)(b)Section 271(1)(b)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH