“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)

Suresh Kumar Saini, Jaipur vs. NFAC, Delhi

16. For the foregoing discussion and findings, this appeal deserves to be allowed

ITA 1256/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Neeraj Gupta, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Anup Singh, Addl.CIT

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

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

Prem Chand Gupta, Alwar vs. ITO Ward 2(3), Alwar

16. For the foregoing discussion and findings, this appeal deserves to be allowed

ITA 1251/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Neeraj Gupta, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Anup Singh, Addl.CIT

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

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

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Alwar vs. Alwar Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd., Alwar

In the result, the Cross objection of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose and the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 634/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shr. Anup Singh, Addl.CIT-Sr.DR a

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 194CSection 201Section 201(1)Section 40Section 80P(2)(d)

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

Sahyogh Nagri Sahkari Patsanstha Maryadit, Jalna vs. Income Tax Ward-1, Jalna

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

ITA 1670/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1670/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Sahyogh Nagri Sahkari Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Jalna. Patsanstha Maryadit, Kasturi 47, Azad Maidan, Near Saibaba Temple, Jalna- 431203. Pan : Abmfs8514J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai Date Of Hearing : 04.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.01.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.06.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. When The Appeal Was Called For Hearing, Neither Anybody Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant-Assessee Nor Any Adjournment Application Was Filed Despite Due Service Of Notice Of Hearing.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 249(4)(b)Section 69A

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

Arti Surana, Howrah vs. I.T.O., Ward - 47(1), Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1405/KOL/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Jan 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.1405/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Arti Surana………………………………..……………………….....Appellant Flat 5Cd, Block Iv, 5Th Floor, Vivek Vihar, Phase V, 493/C/A, G. T Road (South), Howrah-711101. [Pan: Akcpp7261L] Vs. Ito, Ward-47(1), Kolkata……….……….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Rajkumar Agarwal, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashutosh Kumar, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 15, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 27, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 29.04.2024 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. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed Her Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2018-19 By Declaring Total Income Of Rs.3,23,590/-. The Assessing Officer Found The Assessee Has Showed Income Under The Heads Of Short-Term Capital Gain & Other Sources. The Assessee Claimed Exemption Under The Head Of Short-Term Capital Gain From Transaction On Which Securities Transaction Tax Is Paid. However, During The Assessment Proceedings, The Department Received Information Which Indicated That The Assessee Had Traded In Shares Of Amm Ltd. & Eml Scrip Code (538653) To The

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)Section 69Section 69A

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

Kushal Bharat Realcon Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 2(3), Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1099/KOL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Jan 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.1099/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Kushal Bharat Realcon Pvt. Ltd………………………….....Appellant 16, Ganesh Chandra Avenue, Kolkata – 700013. [Pan: Aahcm3213B] Vs. Ito, Ward-2(3), Kolkata……….……….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddhharth Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashutosh Kumar, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 15, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 27, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 05.09.2023 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. At The Outset, The Registry Has Informed That There Is A Delay Of 192 Days In Filing The Present Appeal. The Assessee Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Stating Reasons For Such Delay. After Considering The Application, We Find Reasonable Cause & The Delay Was Not Intentional. We, Therefore, Condone The Delay In Filing The Appeal & Adjudicate The Appeal On Merits Of The Case 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.17,15,430/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 250(6)

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

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Shivamogga vs. Suvarna, Shivamogga

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

ITA 906/BANG/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jan 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year : 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Shri E. Sridhar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PRAKASH CHAND

Sri. Vivek Ramchandra Kawade, Mumbai vs. ITO Circle-27(3), Navi Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the asessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 820/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarvs. Cit -27(3) Shri Vivek Ramchandra Room No. 423, 4Th Kawade Floor, Tower No. 6, B-11, Sita Estate, Mahul Vashi Rly Stn, Vashi Road, Chembur, Mumbai – Navi Mumbai – 400 400074. 703. Pan/Gir No. Bgtpk5019H (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

facts of the present case, cash was deposited by the assessee during demonetization period in his bank accounts, and consequently notice under section 142(1) of 2 Shri Vivek Ramchandra Kawade, Mumbai the act was served upon the assessee which was not replied. Therefore, ex-party order of assessment under ... orders passed by the revenue authorities. From the records we noticed that it is an undisputed fact that notice under section 142(1) of the Act was issued, but assessee failed to respond the notices and ultimately ex- party order of assessment under section 144 of the Act was passed

International Hospital Ltd. (Before Amalgamation M/S Escorts Hospital and Research Centre Ltd), New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-8(3), New Delhi

The appeals are dismissed as infructuous

ITA 3390/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Ircon Soma Tollway (P) Vs. Principal Commissioner Of Ltd., B-4/45, Ground Floor, Income Tax, Range-4, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi New Delhi Pan No. Aabci4622C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri VK Aggarwal, AR & Shri HritikFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250(6)Section 263

declaring total loss at Rs.131,96,47,940/- for assessment year 2012-13. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS. Notice under Section 142(1) of the Act dated 01.10.2014 was served on Assessee. Shri Rajesh Bansal, CA/AR for the assessee furnished details. The assessee company is a joint

Shree Shyam Sales Corporation, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -1(2), Raipur. (C.G.), Raipur

ITA 188/RPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur24 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 188/Rpr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2018-19)

For Appellant: Shri Sakshi Gopal Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. L. Anuragi, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 69C

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, रायपुर "ायपीठ, रायपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR "ी रिवश सूद, "ाियक सद" एवं

Hetalkumar Bhupendrabhai Joshi, Rajkot vs. ITO, Ward-2(2)(1), Rajkot

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 863/RJT/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot24 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 861 & 863/Rjt/2024 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Hetalkumar Bhupendrabhai Joshi. Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(2)(1), Vijay Villa, C/O, Kankrai L Mehta, Rajkot. 5-Mahavir Society Nirmala Road, Rajkot-360005 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Agspj0840P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Raj Shekhar, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DINESH MOHAN

Hetalkumar Bhupendrabhai Joshi, Rajkot vs. ITO, Ward-2(2)(1), Rajkot

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 861/RJT/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot24 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Raj Shekhar, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DINESH MOHAN

Nemichand Jain, Kalani Nagar, Indore vs. ITO 4(1), Aayakar Bhawan

The appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 452/IND/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Udayan Das Guptaassessment Year:2017-18 Nemichand Jain Ito 4(1) 2, Airport Road, Indore बनाम/ Kalani Nagar Vs. Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Abjpj8164A Assessee By Shri Pankaj Mogra, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 22.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24.01.2025

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 250Section 68

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

Sh. Tilak Raj, Hoshiarpur vs. DCIT, International Taxation, Chandigarh

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 279/CHANDI/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Shri Sanat Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl.CIT, Sr.DR

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69

filed by the assessee, then straight away assessment machinery is set to be in A.Y.2011-12 4 motion by issuance of a notice under Section 142(1). The assessee was directed to explain the source of investment which according to the AO, not explained by the assessee because he has framed

Madhu Sudhan Reddy Biddal, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Offier, Ward-9(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1253/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Shri Srikanth Reddy Y, SR-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

Processing of Scrutiny Cases (CASS) to verify Cash deposits during the year, Salary income and cash withdrawals. Notices under Section 143(2) and Section 142(1) of the Act were issued by the Ld. AO to the assessee. However, no compliance was made by the assessee to these notices

Shanmugam Arivazhagan, Kanchipuram vs. ITO Non Corp Ward 22(6), Tambaram

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

ITA 2863/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Jagadishआयकरअपील सं./ Ita Nos.2860, 2861, 2862 & 2863/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-2017) Shanmugam Arivazhagan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 50A, 8Th Street, Non Corp Ward 22(6) Vembuliamman Koil Street, Tambaram. Selaiyur, Kanchipuram 600 073. Chennai. [Pan: Aacpa 1677R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. Pushpa Hemachand, Irs, Jcit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 22.01.2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.01.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manu Kumar Giri () These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)(Nfac) Delhi [Cit(A)] Even Date 28.10.2024 For Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Senior Citizen & Retired Govt. Employee Who Is Earning Mere Pension Income & Small Salary Income. The Assessee Is Incapable Of Understanding & Using The Income Tax Portal To Submit

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Pushpa Hemachand, IRS, JCIT

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 249Section 249(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(b)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ‘बी’’’ "ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय "ी मनु कुमार