“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)

Puspahas Agrawal, Noida vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of Department of Revenue i

ITA 1170/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Section 127Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘C’ NEW DELHI BEFORE, SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIMAL

Sonal Sandeep Satav, Pune vs. PCIT, Pune-2, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 945/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree G.D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Shri Sarang GudhateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “बी” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE MS. ASTHA CHANDRA

Manju Madhusudan Dhoot L/H of Late Madhusudan Dhoot, Ahmednagar vs. ITO Ward 1, Ahmednagar

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1920/PUN/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Dec 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1919 & 1920/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 & 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir JainFor Respondent: Shri B.S.Rajpurohit

Section 144Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.1919

Manju Madhusudan Dhoot, L/H of Late Madhusudan Dhoot, Ahmednagar vs. ITO, Ward 1, Ahmednagar

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1919/PUN/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Dec 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1919 & 1920/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 & 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir JainFor Respondent: Shri B.S.Rajpurohit

Section 144Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.1919

Syed Sirajuddin Mir, Sujagalpur Kalsa, Falta vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 10(1), Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1861/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.1861/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Syed Sirajuddin Mir… ……….. ……..……………………....Appellant Sujagalpur Kalsa, Falta, South 24 Parganas, West Bengal – 743503. [Pan: Avlpm4850A] Vs. Acit, Circle-10(1), Kolkata ….…….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Swarup C Kayal, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Rajak Datta, Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 02, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 03, 2024 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 05.07.2024 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. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That A Notice U/S 142(1) Of The Act Was Issued On 23.03.2018 Directing The Assessee To File A True & Correct Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2017-18. The Notice Was Sent By Post Requiring The Assessee To Furnish Return As Prescribed Under Rule 12 Of The Income Tax Rules, 1962. However, The Assessee Has Failed To File Return U/S 139 Of The Act Or In Response To The Notice Issued U/S 142(1) Of The Act Before 31.03.2018. Based On Data Analytics, It Was Found By The Assessing Officer That The Assessee Had Deposited Substantial Amount Of Cash Of Rs.25,20,000/- In His Bank Account During The Demonetization Period I.E. 09.11.2016 To

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250

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

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru vs. Cmr Jnanadhara Trust, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 291/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Kumar Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D.K Mishra, CIT (DR)

Section 1Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)

similar basis, which were accepted by the Revenue without any adverse remarks. For clarity, we refer to the notice issued under Section 142(1) of the Act for the assessment year 2016-17, dated 22 June 2018, wherein the following questions were raised: “16) Whether under section 13(1

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru vs. Cmr Jnanadhara Trust, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 290/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Kumar Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D.K Mishra, CIT (DR)

Section 1Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)

Income Tax Officer-1(2)(3), Mumbai vs. Masumi Overseas Private Limited, Mumbai

ITA 2020/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang, Hon'Ble & Shri B R Baskaran, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri R R Makwana, Sr DRFor Respondent: Shri Tejveer Singh

Section 142(1)Section 148Section 69

income comprising of profits and gains from business (Rs.1,22,10,248/-) and income from other sources (Rs.48,61,342/-). Subsequently, notice under Section 142(1) of the said Act came to be issued to which respondent replied. The Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had purchased immovable property

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Meerut vs. Kamlesh, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 378/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Delhi03 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT-DR

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 271(1)(b)Section 44ASection 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘C’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT, AND SHRI NAVEEN

Lakhmi Chand Yadav, Faridabad vs. ITO, Ward-1(4), Faridabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the substantial questions of law are answered against the revenue

ITA 516/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganeshita No. 516/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Lakhmi Chand Yadav, Vs Income Tax Officer, Village Mirzapur Hardet Haveli Ward-1(4), Mujehri, Faridabad, Haryana-121004 Faridabad-121001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaepy4744P Assessee By : Sh. M. K. Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Sh. B. S. Anand, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 03.12.2024 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2011-12, Arises Against The Order Of Cit(A), Faridabad Dated 28.11.2019 In Case No. 10339/2018-19 In Proceedings U/S 143(3)/147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. M. K. Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. B. S. Anand, Sr. Dr

Section 133ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 260A

reopened under Section 147 of the Act by issuance of notice under Section 148 dated 13.03.2016. Subsequently, notices under Section 143(2) and Section 142(1) were issued. Pursuant to such notices the assessee through their authorized representative appeared before the Assessing 4 Lakhmi Chand Yadav Officer and produced details

Shaheen Begum Ishaq Mohammed, Aurangabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Aurangabad

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

ITA 1960/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune02 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1960/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Shaheen Begum Ishaq Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1), Mohammed, Aurangabad. H.No.1-23-44 Beside Mina Function Hall, Dedi Bazar, Aurangabad- 431001. Pan : Eimpm3589L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai Date Of Hearing : 07.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.12.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 07.08.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Return Of Income Was Not Filed By Her. The Case Was Reopened U/S 148 On The Basis Of Reason That The Assessee Along With Four

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148

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

Pramod Jain, PAN Mandi vs. ITO., Ward-7(2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 378/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad02 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Ramesh Chand Jain, C.AFor Respondent: : Shri S.Mookambikeyan, SR-DR

Section 115Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 69Section 80T

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘B’ Bench, Hyderabad BEFORE SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL

Aas Mohammad, Tizara vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-Bhiwadi

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

ITA 1102/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary Addl.CIT

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 151(1)Section 250

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR डा० एस. सीतालक्ष्मी, न्यायिक

Satish Rajaji Rathod, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-Ward 19(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 5404/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Sucheck AnchaliyaFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 80CSection 80D

best judgment basis under section 144 of the Act. The assessee also did not comply with the statutory notices issued under section 142(1) of the Act. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer (“AO”) vide order dated 28.03.2014 passed under section 144 read with section 147 of the Act computed the total

A Kheni Developer Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, 12(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1878/MUM/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri V.P. KothariFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishna Kedia, Sr.DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

return filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny through CASS and statutory notices under section 143(2) and section 142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee. During the assessment proceedings, it was observed that the assessee has received an unsecured loan amounting

Indian Red Cross Society Ut Branch Chandigarh, Karuna Sadan Building vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemptions, Circle-1, Chandigarh

ITA 460/CHANDI/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh29 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Monga, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 263Section 80G(5)(vi)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च"ीगढ़ "ायपीठ “ए” , च"ीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “A”, CHANDIGARH HEARING

Master Trust Limited, Ludhiana vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ludhiana

In the result, ground no. 1 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 334/CHANDI/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh29 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, C.A and Shri Aditya Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250

thereafter notice under section 143(2) was issued alongwith copy of the reasons recorded which was supplied to the assessee. Thereafter, notice under section 142(1) was issued calling for the necessary information/ documentation from the assessee to which the assessee filed its submissions but not finding the same acceptable

Mukund Pranavkumar Patel, Ahmedabad vs. ITO Ward1(3)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 886/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 234ASection 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “B” BENCH Before: Smt. Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Member And Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

Gitesh Chandulal Patel Legal Heir of Late Hasumatiben Chandubhai Patel, Mehsana vs. The Pr. CIT-3, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 656/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Dhrunal Bhatt, ARFor Respondent: Shri Durga Dutt, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 159Section 263

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Jivrajbhai Ramabhai Chaudhary, Banaskantha vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Palanpur

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

ITA 1024/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Guptaasstt.Year :2017-18 Jivarajbhai Ramabhai Chaudhary Income Tax Officer Patel Vas, Village : Hadta, Jadiya Vs Ward-3 Tal. Dhanera Palanpur. Dist: Banaskantha Gujarat. Pan : Azzpp 6148 A (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Jimi Patel, Ar Assessee By : Ms.Neeju Gupta, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27/11/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/11/2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

For Appellant: Ms.Neeju Gupta, Sr.DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250

that the AO noted that the assessee had not filed the return of income within the time stipulated in the notice under section 142(1) of the Act, and therefore, the return, if any filed by the assessee, is treated as invalid return. My attention was drawn to the para ... ld.counsel for the assessee, thereafter drew our attention to the facts of the case, pointing out that the notice under section 142(1) of the Act was issued to the assessee, asking to file return of income on 8.3.2018. The assessee filed his return of income on 5.10.2018 i.e. after