“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)

Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Circle, Pune vs. The Shetkari Shikshan Mandal, Pune

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

ITA 1182/PUN/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Jan 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri B.C. MalakarFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai

Section 11Section 11(6)Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “बी” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA

ITO(It)-2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Subramania Sreenivasan Ganeshnath, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed in terms of paragraph 8 and 9 above

ITA 2439/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: MS. PADMAVATHY S., ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Hiren CFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Savant

Section 142(1)Section 144C(3)Section 147Section 250Section 68Section 69C

filed return of income on 19/05/2021 declaring, inter alia, Short Term Capital Gain of INR.7,99,040/-. In response to the notice under Section 142(1), dated 27/01/2021 and show cause notice dated 23/02/2022, the Assessee filed documents including Bank Statements, Computation of Income, reconciliation of income with Bank Statement ... year the Assessee had purchased and sold shares of Kushal Limited. In the return of income filed in response to notice issued under Section 142(1) of the Act, the Assessee had offered to tax the short term capital gains income arising from sale of shares of Kushal Limited during

Pankaj Kumar Tyagi, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Ghaziabad

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1941/DEL/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jan 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Shri Umesh Kumar Bajaj, Vs Dcit, R-5/21, Raj Nagar, Central Circle, Ghaziabad-201002. Ghaziabad Pan-Abcpb4457B Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2011-12] Acit, Vs Umesh Kumar Bajaj, Central Circle, House No.21, Sector-5, Ghaziabad Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad-201002. Pan-Abcpb4457B Appellant Respondent

Section 1

ITA No.2076/Del/2023 & Others IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “C” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Amit Kumar Gupta, Ramanujganj, Balrampur vs. Income Tax Officer-1, Korba

ITA 405/RPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur13 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 404 & 405/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2011-12 Amit Kumar Gupta House No.7, Shetpara, P.O. Ramanujganj, Dist. Balrampur-497 220 (C.G.) Pan: Axbpg1069P .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1, Korba (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri G.S. Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Anubhaa Tah Goel, Sr. DR

Section 127Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69A

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ “एक-सद"य” मामला रायपुर म" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH

Amit Kumar Gupta, Ramanujganj, Balrampur vs. Income Tax Officer-1, Korba

ITA 404/RPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur13 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri G.S. Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Anubhaa Tah Goel, Sr. DR

Section 127Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69A

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ “एक-सद"य” मामला रायपुर म" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH

Vitarag Export Industries, Junagadh Road vs. ITO, Ward - 2(1)(1), Rajkot, Aayakar Bhavan

In the result, ground No.5 raised by the assessee, is allowed

ITA 354/RJT/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot13 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.354/Rjt/2023 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Hearing) Vitrang Export Industries, Vs. The Ito, Junagadh Road, Near Railway Ward – 2(1)(1), Crossing, Dhoraji, Gujarat - 360140 Rajkot "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aahfv2407M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri D. M. Rindani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Kumar Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

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

M/S. Madhuram Construction Co. Junagadh, Junagadh vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Rajkot

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

ITA 80/RJT/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot13 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT.DR

Section 143(3)Section 263

pertinent to mention here that the way in which assessment should be finalized falls in the exclusive domain of the Assessing Officer. Section 142(1) speaks of inquiry before assessment and gives immense power to the assessing officer for conducting enquiry. Therefore, the assessing officer (A.O.) u/s 142(1 ... fact by the Tribunal was that the assessee had produced relevant material and offered explanations in pursuance of the notices issued under section 142(1) as well as section 143(2) of the Act and after considering the material and explanations, the Income-tax Officer had come to a definite

Dharmendra Kumar, Patna vs. ITO Ward 4 (2), Patna

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 61/PAT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna13 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.61/Pat/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Dharmendra Kumar……….. ………...…..…………………....Appellant Panchuchak Ramnagar Colony, Patna, Bihar – 801503. [Pan: Bftpk2616B] Vs. Ito, Ward-4(2), Patna………………….............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 09, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 13, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 28.07.2022 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 Based On An Information Obtained From Aims Database By Using Itba Modules, The Assessing Officer Observed That The Assessee Had Deposited Rs.39,23,000/- In Various Bank Accounts During The Period Of Demonetisation. As The Assessee Did Not File A Return Of Income & The Source Of The Said Deposits Were Remained Unexplained & Unaccounted For During The Relevant Assessment Year, The Assessing Officer Believed That Income Chargeable To Tax Had Escaped Assessment Within The Meaning Of Section 147 Of The Act. Accordingly, The Assessing Officer Issued Notices U/S 142(1) Along With 148 Of The Act To The Assessee But There Was No Response From The

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

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

ACIT., Circle 8(1), Hyderabad vs. V Dream Technology & Communication Private Limited, Hyderabad

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

ITA 1197/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad13 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 1197/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) A.C.I.T Vs. V Dream Technology & Circle 8(1) Communication (P) Ltd Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aaecv9284A (Appellant) (Respondent) राज" व "ारा/Revenue By Dr. Sachin Kumar, Dr िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By N O N E सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 13/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 13/01/2025

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

ITA No 1197 of 2024 V Dream Technology and Communication P Ltd आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN

Mohammad Amjad Ali Sahaji, Habra, Ashokenagar vs. Ward 50(2) Kolkata, Income Tax

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

ITA 631/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)Section 250

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण कोलकाता 'एसएमसी' पीठ, कोलकाता में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘SMC’ BENCH, KOLKATA श्री संजय

Mustasq Ahmad, Chennai vs. ITO, Intl Tax Ward 1(1), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1351/CHNY/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1351/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-2014. Mustaq Ahmad, The Income Tax Officer, No.160, Mustafa Centre, Vs. International Taxation, Usman Road, Ward 1(1) T. Nagar, Chennai. Chennai 600 017. Pan: Adepa 1181B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. Lekha, C.A, ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Mr. Nilay Baran Som, Cit. सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30.10.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 13.01.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri () This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), Chennai-16 [‘Cit(A)’ Short] Dated 27.09.2023 For Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. In This Appeal, The Assessee Has Raised Five (5) Grounds Of Appeal. However, The Counsel For The Assessee Has Vehemently Pressed A Ground No.2 That There Was No Fresh Material On Which The Ao Has Issued Notice Dated 31.03.2021 U/S 148 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’ In Short). G.No.2 Is As Under: ‘’2. At The Outset, The Ao Has No Jurisdiction To Reopen The Assessment, As All The Material Facts Were With The Ao Even At The Time Of Completing The Original Assessment & There Was No Fresh Material On Which The Ao Has Issued Notice. The Notice Issued By The Ao U/S.148 Of The Act Is Ab Initio Void & On This Ground Alone The Reassessment Deserves To Be Cancelled’’.

For Appellant: Ms. Lekha, C.AFor Respondent: Mr. Nilay Baran Som, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)(e)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ए, "ायपीठ,चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय "ी मनु कुमार िग

Janak Texturisers Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 472/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri G.P. Mehta, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, Ld. Sr. D.R

Section 142(1)Section 148Section 24Section 3

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2010-11

The Manjri Stud Farm Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax - Circle 2(2)(1) - Mumbai, Mumbai

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4261/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, V.P. & Shri Girish Agrawal, A.M. A.Y.2010-11 The Manjri Stud Farm Pvt. Ltd. The Dcit, 42/44, Shapoorji Pallonji Centre, Circle 2(2)(1), Minoo Desai Marg, Mumbai Cloaba, Mumbai Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan Aaact 1947J Assessee By Shri Vishal Asrani Revenue By Shri R.R. Makwana, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing 06.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 13.01.2025

Section 142(1)Section 154

AY 2010-11 The Manjri Stud Farm Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, Mumbai IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH

Railroad Logistics India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr Commissioner of Income Tax-3, Mumbai

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

ITA 2564/MUM/2023[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri. Girish Agarwal, Am Railroad Logistics India Pvt. Ltd. The Principal Commissioner Of C/O Metal Trim, Gala No.1, Tankiwala Income Tax Pcit, Mumbai-3 Room No. 612, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Indl. Estate, Steel Made Compound, Marol Vs. Maroshi Road, Marol, Andheri (E) , Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai – 400 059. Mumbai-400020 Pan/Gir No. Aaccr3484J (Assessee) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. Satish R. Mody Respondent By : Shri. Tushar Mohite Sr. Ar Date Of Hearing : 18.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.01.2025 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M:

For Appellant: Shri. Satish R. ModyFor Respondent: Shri. Tushar Mohite Sr. AR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 263

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM AND SHRI. GIRISH AGARWAL, AM Railroad