“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)

Pranav Wine Shop, Satara vs. DCIT, Satara

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

ITA 2032/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Damodar VaidyaFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, Addl. CIT DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS ASTHA

Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Panvel, Aaykar Bhavan Panvel vs. Thanaram Peeraramji Chaudhary, Panvel

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed for

ITA 1003/PUN/2024[2017-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Nov 2024AY 2017-08

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Smt. Naina Chaurasia (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, Addl.CIT-DR

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 46A(3)Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “B” BENCH : PUNE BEFORE SHRI RAMA KANTA PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS. ASTHA

Vedant Fashions Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 3(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 530/KOL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Nov 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No.530/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Vedant Fashions Ltd...………………........………………....Appellant Sdf-1, A-501, A-502, 4Th Floor, 19 Canal South Road, Paridhan Garment Park, Kolkata – 700015. [Pan: Aabcv4646B] Vs. Dcit, Circle-3(2), Kolkata.….…….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sunil Surana, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Pradip Kr. Biswas, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 18, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 29, 2024 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 30.01.2024 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 21, Kolkata [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 The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.3084417870/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny By Issuing Notice U/S 143(2) Under Cass, Consequent To This, Notices U/S 142(1) & 133(6) Of The Act Were Issued To The Assessee Seeking Clarification & Verification Of The Deduction Claimed In The Return. During The Assessment Proceedings, The Assessing Officer Observed That The Assessee Had Claimed A Deduction Of Rs.2,98,57,165/- Towards Health & Education Cess. The Assessing Officer Disallowed This Deduction Holding That The Health And

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 250Section 40

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

Provash Adhikari, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 46(4), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 148/KOL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Nov 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Sonjoy Sarma & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68

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

Simoco Systems and Infrastructure Solutions Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO Ward 2 (1), Kolkata

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

ITA 123/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Indranil Banerjee, ARFor Respondent: Ankur Goyal, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 115JSection 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT

Kadavathur Service Co-Operativ Bank Ltd, Kadavathur vs. ACIT, Ward-2, Kannur

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

ITA 213/COCH/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Nov 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri.Arun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Senior AR

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 142(1)Section 148Section 80(5)Section 80ASection 80A(5)Section 80P

were admittedly filed after the dates prescribed under sections 139(1) and 139(4) or in the notices issued under section 142(1) and section 148, the returns were indeed non-est and could not have been acted upon by the Assessing Officer even though they were filed before

The Koonathara Milk Producers Co-Operative Society Ltd, Ottapalam vs. ITO, Ward-3, Palakkad

In the result, the appeal and the stay application filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 169/COCH/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Nov 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm & Sa No. 16/Coch/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri V.P. Narayanan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 148Section 80ASection 80A(5)Section 80P

were admittedly filed after the dates prescribed under Sections 139(1) and 139(4) or in the notices issued under Section 142(1) and Section 148, the returns were indeed non-est and could not have been acted upon by the Assessing Officer even though they were filed before

Pazhayannur Farmers Service Co-Op Bank Ltd, Thrissur vs. The ITO Ward 2(4), Thrissur

In the result, the appeals and the stay applications filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 228/COCH/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Nov 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Amal Jith, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 80Section 80ASection 80A(5)Section 80P

Pazhayannur Farmers Service Co-Op Bank Ltd, Thrissur vs. The ITO Ward 2(4), Thrissur

In the result, the appeals and the stay applications filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 227/COCH/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Nov 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Amal Jith, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 80Section 80ASection 80A(5)Section 80P

The Perundurai Primary Agricultural Cooperative Bank Limited, Erode vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1) Erode, Erode

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

ITA 2139/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Nov 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकरअपील सं./ Ita Nos.1898, 2137 & 2139/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2016-2017, 2020-21 & 2020-2021) The Perundurai Primary Agricultural Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Co-Operative Bank Limited, Ward 2(1), No.330, Bhavani Road, Erode Perundurai, Erode 638 052. [Pan: Aabat 2523R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Ms. A. Vijayalakshmi, C.A., ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri V. Justin, Irs, Addl. Cit.

For Appellant: Ms. A. Vijayalakshmi, C.AFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin, IRS, Addl. CIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 8O

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ‘स’ "ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय "ी मनोज कुमार

The Perundurai Primary Agricultural Co Operative Bank Limited, Erode vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1) Erode, Erode

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

ITA 2137/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Nov 2024AY 2020-21

For Appellant: Ms. A. Vijayalakshmi, C.AFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin, IRS, Addl. CIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 8O

The Perundurai Primary Agricultural Co Operative Bank Limited, Erode vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Erode

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

ITA 1898/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Ms. A. Vijayalakshmi, C.AFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin, IRS, Addl. CIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 8O

Raghav Commodities, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 6(2), Jaipur

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

ITA 943/JPR/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Nov 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh

Shri Prem Industries, Bharatpur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Bharatpur

The appeal is disposed of, and the matter is remanded to

ITA 877/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anup Singh, Addl. CIT

Section 144BSection 147Section 271ASection 69CSection 70

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

Rakesh Kumar Singrodia, Mukundgarh Mandi, Jhunjhunu vs. ITO, WD 1, Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1168/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Pratik Jain, CA (V.H)For Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

Section 131Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 37(1)Section 68

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh

Smt. Sumati Sathish Khanderai, Hassan vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Hassan

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

ITA 2014/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18 Smt. Sumati Sathish Khanderai, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 372, Main Road, Belur, Ward – 2, Hassan – 573 115. Hassan. Pan : Blaps 3596 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Sunaina Bhatia, Advocate. Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel For Department. Date Of Hearing : 21.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.11.2024 O R D E R Per Laxmi Prasad Sahuthis Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) [Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1067756232(1)] Dated 20.08.2024. 2. Briefly Stated, The Facts Of The Case Are That A Notice Under Section 142(1) Dated 01.12.2017 Was Issued To The Assessee Calling To File Income Tax Return For Assessment Year 2017-18 By 31.12.2017. During The Demonetization Period, Assessee Deposited Cash Of Rs.97,80,040/- Into Her Bank Account. The Ao Issued Notices But The Assessee Did Not Respond The Notices. The Ao Issued Show Cause Notice On 17.09.2019 Proposing To Complete The Assessment Under Section 144 Of The Act & Assessee Was Given Time Till 23.09.2019. In Response, The Assessee Appeared On Page 2 Of 5

For Appellant: Smt. Sunaina Bhatia, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Department

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

Appeal Centre (NFAC) [DIN and Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1067756232(1)] dated 20.08.2024. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that a notice under section 142(1) dated 01.12.2017 was issued to the assessee calling to file Income Tax Return for Assessment Year 2017-18 by 31.12.2017. During the demonetization period

M/S. N S Hotels Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1965/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. N. S. Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 1103, 20Th Cross, 14Th Main Road, Ward – 5(1)(1), 3Rd Sector, Hsr Layout, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 034. Pan : Aaccn 6187 A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Jharna B. Harilal, Ca. Revenue By : Shri. Subramanian S, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 21.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.11.2024 O R D E R Per Laxmi Prasad Sahuthis Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) [Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1067691254(1)] Dated 16.08.2024. 2. Briefly Stated, The Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Return Of Income On 07.11.2016 Declaring A Loss Of Rs.28,04,226/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & Statutory Notices Were Issued To The Assessee. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, Assessee At The First Instance Did Not Respond To The Ao’S Notice But Later Responded Page 2 Of 4

For Appellant: Smt. Jharna B. Harilal, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 43B

case was selected for scrutiny and notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 24.09.2018. Thereafter, another notice under section 142(1) of the Act was issued on 06.02.2019 and it is clear that various opportunities were granted to the assessee to represent its case

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Ballari, Fort vs. Varalakshmi Credit Ssn, Kampli

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

ITA 1941/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri V. Parithivel, D.RFor Respondent: Sri Deepak, A.R

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 68Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

ITA Nos.1940&1941/Bang/2024 Varalakshmi Credit SSN, Kampli IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Ballari, Fort vs. Varalakshmi Credit Ssn, Kampli

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

ITA 1940/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri V. Parithivel, D.RFor Respondent: Sri Deepak, A.R

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 68Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

ITA Nos.1940&1941/Bang/2024 Varalakshmi Credit SSN, Kampli IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED

Sheena Singh, Mumbai vs. I.T.O Ward 41(3)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 5365/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhailsheena Singh, B/303 Mayfair Marvel, Ahimsa Marg, Chincholi Bunder Road, Malad West, Mumbai, Dely S.O. – 400064, ……………. Appellant Maharashtra Pan: Bakps1701F V/S

For Appellant: Shri R.B. PopatFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Sr.DR

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 144Section 234ASection 250Section 56(2)(x)Section 69

return filed by the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny and statutory notices under section 143(2) and section 142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee. In connection with the complete scrutiny proceedings, the assessee was requested vide letter dated 27/01/2021, 11/02/2021, 19/02/2021 and 01/03/2021