← 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)

Dalmia Dsp Limited (Formerly Known As Kalyanpur Cements Limited), Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 5(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 54/KOL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Jan 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.54/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dalmia Dsp Ltd………………..………........………………....Appellant 2&3, Lic Building, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Sarani, (Clive Row), Kolkata-1. [Pan: Aabck1273H] Vs. Dcit, Circle-5(1), Kolkata…….……….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Navin Verma, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Subhendu Datta, Cit- Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 11, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 28, 2024 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 13.11.2018 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Pertaining To Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Company Filed Its Return Of Income On 25.09.2010 By Declaring A Total Loss Of Rs.63,97,05,090/-. The Return Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Act. Subseqeuntly, The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny & A Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Act Was Issued & Assessment Order Was Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 24.01.2013 Determining A Total Loss Of Rs.60,17,78,201/-. Later On, The Case Was Reviewed U/S 263 Of The Act Considering The Assessment Order Dated 24.01.2013 As It Was Found Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue As Per Order Dated 30.03.2015 U/S 263 Of The Act Setting Aside The File To The Assessing

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 43B

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

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2, Mangaluru vs. Alakananda Printers (P) Ltd, Mangaluru

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes and CO filed by the assessee in support of the Order of the CIT(A)

ITA 1774/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Boarkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sridhar E, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 129Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 153CSection 2(47)

Therefore, the return was treated as invalid return and proceedings were completed under section 144 of the Act after issuing notice under section 142(1) of the Act. The notice under section 129 of the Act was also issued. The AO noted that the year of incidents of capital gains

H Venkatesh Reddy, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(3)(2), Bengaluru

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

ITA 1669/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Abhilash, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V Parithivel, JCIT (DR)
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

assessee filed his return of income, declaring a total income of ₹ 41,15,380/- only. Subsequently, in response to a notice issued under section 142(1) of the Act, the assessee furnished his bank statement, rental agreement, details of fixed deposit receipts (FDRs), and other relevant documents for the year ... cause, to do so before the expiry of the time limit specified under section 153(1) of the Act, and no notice under section 142(1) or 148 of the Act is issued during that period, then if the AO or the CIT(A) is satisfied that the assessee

Kaatyaayini Steels Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, WD-12(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4398/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Am

For Appellant: Shri. Jay ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri. Hemanshu Joshi (Sr. DR)
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM AND SMT. RENU JAUHRI, AM ITA

Kaatyaayini Steels Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, WD-12(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4397/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Am

For Appellant: Shri. Jay ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri. Hemanshu Joshi (Sr. DR)
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM AND SMT. RENU JAUHRI, AM ITA

Bright Builders & Developers, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-19(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 3425/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ravi GuptaFor Respondent: Date
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69C

treated as return filed in response to the notice under Section 148 of the Act. Thereafter, notices were issued to the Assessee under Section 142(1) of the Act on 26/09/2018 and 26/10/2018 which were not complied with by the Appellant. Notice issued under Section

Shummy Poulose Puthanangady, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 27, Mumbai, Navi Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1448/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Jigar MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Kishor Dhule – CIT-DR
Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 263

issued on 28.03.2021. In response to the aforesaid notice, the assessee did not make any compliance. Subsequently, notice under section 142(1) of the Act was issued informing the assessee that it had made a transaction of Rs.1,14,25,904/- in penny scrip of "Ojas Asset Reconstruction Company ... stock, the Long-Term Capital Gains earned by the assessee is bogus. 12. From the perusal of the notice dated 20.12.2021 issued under section 142(1) of the Act, forming part of the paper book from pages 8-9, we find that during the re-assessment proceedings, the AO sought

Little Scholars Academy, Amroha vs. ACIT, Central, Moradabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1971/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13 Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/S. Livros Publishing Pvt. Ward-1(2)(4). Ltd., 37, Chippi Tank, Meerut (U.P) Meerut Pan: Aabcl7313B (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Lalit Mohan, Adv. & Shri AnkitFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 68

Directorate of Income Tax (System) through CASS. Notice under Section 143(2) of the Act dated 12.08.2013 was issued. Various notices under Section 142(1) of the Act were issued calling for specific evidence, explanation and clarifications. During hearing further clarifications were obtained. The assessee also filed report

DCIT, Central Circle-25, New Delhi vs. Ans Steel Tubes Ltd, New Delhi

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

ITA 2648/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 270A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘A’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BRAJESH

DCIT Central Circle -25, New Delhi vs. Ans Steel Tube Ltd, New Delhi

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

ITA 2647/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 270A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘A’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BRAJESH

Sourabh Kumar Soni, Ashoknagar (M.P) vs. ITO - Ashoknagar, Ashoknagar

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

ITA 71/AGR/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Agra27 Jan 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 115BSection 127Section 144Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA (SMC) BENCH, AGRA BEFORE : SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2017-18

Income Tax Officer Ward-2, Khamgaon vs. Renuka Oil Industries, Khamgaon

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 390/NAG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur27 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 154Section 35A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER SMC MATTER ITA no.390/Nag

Income Tax Officer Ward-2, Chandrapur vs. Nitin Subhash Sharma, Chandrapur

In the result, appeals by the Revenue for the A

ITA 364/NAG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur27 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 148Section 194CSection 44A

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

Income Tax Officer Ward-2, Chandrapur vs. Nitin Subhash Sharma, Chandrapur

In the result, appeals by the Revenue for the A

ITA 363/NAG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur27 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 148Section 194CSection 44A

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

Income Tax Officer Ward-2, Chandrapur vs. Nitin Subhash Sharma, Chandrapur

In the result, appeals by the Revenue for the A

ITA 362/NAG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur27 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 148Section 194CSection 44A

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

Pradeep Pinjani, Bhopal vs. ITO-1(2), Bhopal

Appeal is allowed as mentioned above

ITA 556/IND/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54F

shall be as under: a. In ‘Limited Scrutiny' cases, the reasons/issues shall be forthwith communicated to the assess concerned. b. The Questionnaire under section 142(1) of the Act in ‘Limited Scrutiny’ cases shall remain confined only to the specific reasons/issues for which case has been picked up for scrutiny

Vishal Rudrawal, Chhatri Road vs. Income Tax Officer, Mandsaur Mp

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 549/IND/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaassessment Year:2018-19 Vishal Rudrawal Ito, Chhatri Road, Bhanpura Mandsaur बनाम/ Mandsaur Vs. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Awkpr6115P Assessee By Shri Santosh Deshmukh & Shri Parth Jhawar, Ars Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 01.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27.01.2025

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148

आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, इंदौर"ायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND

Grand Consulting Services Private Limited, Indore vs. Income Tax Officer -2 (1), Indore

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 481/IND/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

Section 140Section 142(1)Section 144

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA

Manish Kumar Jaisinghani, Prabhat Plaza vs. Income Tax Officer 1(1) Indore, Indore

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 126/IND/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Jan 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA

Prem Lata Pandya, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4, Jaipur

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

ITA 1471/JPR/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Jan 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1471/JPR/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2019-20 Prem Lata Pandya बनाम Deputy Commissioner of 302, Raj Mension, D-299, Vs. Income Tax, Tulsi Marg Bani Park, Central Circle-4, Jaipur. Jaipur अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायीलेखा सं./ जीआईआर सं./ PAN/GIR No.:ACXPJ9951A निधर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assessee by : Sh. S.L.Poddar, Adv. राजस्व की ओरसे / Revenue by: Sh. Gautam Singh

For Appellant: Sh. S.L.Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 115BSection 127Section 132ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR Jh jkBkSM+ deys'k