← 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)

M/S. M B M Developers, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Circle-4(3)(1), Bengaluru

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2091/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv C. Nulvi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 32Section 40

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL

Arti Kamlesh Shah, Pune vs. ITO Ward 5(1), Pune

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

ITA 2210/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2210/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.2210/PUN/2024

Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(1), Pune vs. Sunil Asher, Pune

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1289/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1289/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 The Income Tax Officer, V Sunil Asher, Ward-6(1), Pune. S B-602, Verde Residence Collection, Near Gurunanak Dairy, Kalyaninagar, Maharashtra – 411037. Pan: Acapa1980B Appellant/ Revenue Respondent /Assessee Assessee By Shri Kishor B Phadke – Ar Revenue By Shri Arvind Desai – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 24/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 24/12/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] U/Sec.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; Dated 18.04.2024 For The A.Y.2016-17, Emanating From Assessment Order U/Sec.144 Of The Act For A.Y.2016-17, Dated 16.12.2018. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. On The Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Id. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Made U/S 68 Of The Act, By Accepting The Claim Of The Assessee That The Source Of The Investments Of Rs.5.87 Cr. Are Lifetime Accumulations & Savings Of The Assessee Made Out Of Earnings In Canada & Thailand, As Well As In India, Without Appreciating The Fact That Assessee Has Failed To Produce Any Supporting Documentary Evidences During The Assessment Proceedings Before The Ao. While Doing So, The Ld.Cit(A) Also Failed To Actually Examine Whether The Accumulations Claimed To Be Past Savings, Were Disclosed In The Itrs Filed For The Respective Years & Offered To Tax.

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 250(4)Section 68

assessment order that assessee merely filed electronically some bank account statements and failed to comply subsequent notices. The Assessing Officer issued notice under section 142(1) of the Act, dated 22.02.2018, 26.05.2018, 12.11.2018 and 23.11.2018. Further the Assessing Officer issued a show-cause notice dated 10.12.2018. As per assessment order

Nilesh Shamji Bharani, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals by the assessee for the

ITA 5631/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailsmt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar BindalFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 250Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER SMT. RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT

Nilesh Shamji Bharani, Mumbai vs. DCIT-Central Circle -4(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals by the assessee for the assessment years

ITA 5630/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailsmt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar BindalFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 250Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER SMT. RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT

Nilesh Shamji Bharani, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle -4(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals by the assessee for the assessment years

ITA 5629/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailsmt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar BindalFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 250Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER SMT. RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT

Nilesh Shamji Bharani, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals by the assessee for the

ITA 5628/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailsmt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar BindalFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 250Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER SMT. RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT

Nilesh Shamji Bharani, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle -4(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals by the assessee for the

ITA 5627/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailsmt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar BindalFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 250Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER SMT. RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT

Nilesh Shamji Bharani, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle -4(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals by the assessee for the

ITA 5626/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailsmt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar BindalFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 250Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER SMT. RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT

Nilesh Shamji Bharani, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle -4(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals by the assessee for the

ITA 5625/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailsmt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar BindalFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 250Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER SMT. RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT

Nilesh Shamji Bharani, Mumbai vs. DCIT-CC-4(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals by the assessee for the assessment years

ITA 5624/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailsmt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar BindalFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 250Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER SMT. RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT

Kasturi Lal, Ludhiana vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Khanna

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 274/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 115Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 69A

notes and the assessee was asked to submit its necessary explanation for the source of the said deposits and notice under section 142(1) was issued. 3.1 In response to the notice, the assessee submitted that he was running a fuel station and authorize to receive SBN in lieu

Satwinder Kaur, Sangrur vs. ITO, Ward, Sangrur

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 301/CHANDI/2023[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Dec 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjeet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 271Section 271(1)(b)Section 274

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ “एस.एम.सी” , च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH

Tara Constructions, Pune vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5, Pune

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

ITA 531/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Neelesh KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

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

Prasad Ashokchand Kunkulol, Aurangabad vs. ACIT, Circle-3, Aurangabad

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

ITA 337/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.336 & 337/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Basavaraj Hiremath
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 250(6)Section 271DSection 68

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

Prasad Ashokchand Kunkulol, Aurangabad vs. ACIT, Circle-3, Aurangabad

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

ITA 336/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.336 & 337/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Basavaraj Hiremath
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 250(6)Section 271DSection 68

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

Balasaheb Ganpat Jare, Beed vs. ITO Ward 1(5), Aurangabad

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

ITA 2328/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)Section 69

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.2328/PUN/2024

Ms Omkar Urban Multistate Co-Operative Credit Society Limited, Jalna vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Jalna

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

ITA 1644/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

For Appellant: Shri Hari KrishanFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak
Section 115BSection 131Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144ASection 250Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1644/PUN/2024

M/S. Bhikshu Polymers Pvt. Ltd. (Earlier Known As M/S. Jeevan Commotrade Pvt. Ltd.), Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 6(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1538/KOL/2024[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Dec 2024AY 2009-2010

Bench: SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH KOLKATA SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A

Sathyamoorthy Geetha, Chennai vs. ITO, Non Corp Ward-13(4), Chennai

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

ITA 2788/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2788 /Chny/2024 धििाारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sathyamoorthy Geetha, The Income Tax Officer, Old No.70, New No.15, Vs. Non-Corporate Ward-13(4), Kumaran Colony, Chennai First Street, Vadapalani, Chennai-600 026. [Pan: Botpg5781E] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant)

For Appellant: Ms.Samyuktha BanusekarFor Respondent: Ms.V.Aswathy, JCIT
Section 131Section 142(1)Section 250

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, ’डी’ न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI श्री मनु कुमार गिरि, न्यागिक