← 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)

Shrinivas Vijaykumar Chidrewar, Pune vs. ITO Ward 3(3), Pune

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

ITA 1469/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1469/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shrinivas Vijaykumar Vs. Ito, Ward-3(3), Pune. Chidrewar, A-38, S.No.55, H.No.1, Sadbhav Co-Op. Housing Society, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Ahspc3607Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By Shri Arvind Desai : Date Of Hearing : 09.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.11.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30.05.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual Carrying On The Business Of Real-Estate Consultant & 2 Allied Activities & Furnished His Return Of Income Declaring Taxable Income Of Rs.5,13,056/-. Subsequently, A Notice U/S 148 Of The It Act Was Issued On The Basis Of Information Received From Acit, Circle-4(4), Mumbai That The Assessee Had Made Huge Cash Deposits In His Bank Accounts Maintained With M/S. Renuka Mata Multi State Urban Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd. However, No Return Of Income Was Filed In Response To Notice U/S 148 Within 30 Days From The Date Of Service Of Notice. Thereafter, A Notice U/S 142(1) Was Issued & Assessee Furnished His Reply Along With Copy Of Bank Account, Copy Of Original Itr & Copy Of Registered Sale Deed. Thereafter Further Notices Issued By The Assessing Officer Requesting For Further Clarification On Account Of Cash Of Rs.54,24,870/- In Bank Account, But The Assessee Did Not Reply. The Assessing Officer Completed The Assessment U/S 144 R.W.S. 147 On A Total Income Of Rs.59,37,926/- As Against The Income Declared By The Assessee In Its Return Of Income At Rs.5,13,056/-. Above Assessed Income Includes Unexplained Cash Deposits Of Rs.54,24,870/-.

For Appellant: None
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148

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

Sikkim State Co-Operative Bank Ltd.(Sisco Bank), Gangtok vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 3(2), Gangtok

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

ITA 1212/KOL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Nov 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 142(1)Section 148Section 36(1)(vii)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ “सी’’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH: KOLKATA "ी राजेश कुमार

Sikkim State Co-Operative Bank Ltd.(Sisco Bank), Gangtok vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 3(2), Gangtok

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

ITA 1211/KOL/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Nov 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 142(1)Section 148Section 36(1)(vii)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ “सी’’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH: KOLKATA "ी राजेश कुमार

Sikkim State Co-Operative Bank Ltd. (Sisco Bank), Gangtok vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 3(2), Gangtok

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

ITA 1210/KOL/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Nov 2024AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 142(1)Section 148Section 36(1)(vii)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ “सी’’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH: KOLKATA "ी राजेश कुमार

Sikkim State Co-Operative Bank Ltd. (Sisco Bank), Gangtok vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 3(2), Gangtok

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

ITA 1209/KOL/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Nov 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 142(1)Section 148Section 36(1)(vii)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ “सी’’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH: KOLKATA "ी राजेश कुमार

Sikkim State Co-Operative Bank Ltd. (Sisco Bank), Gangtok vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 3(2), Gangtok

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

ITA 1208/KOL/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Nov 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 142(1)Section 148Section 36(1)(vii)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ “सी’’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH: KOLKATA "ी राजेश कुमार

K. Selvaraj, Krishnagiri vs. ACIT Cricle 1 Hosur, Hosur

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

ITA 2434/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2434/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 K. Selvaraj, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 147/28B, Ganthi Nagar, Income Tax, Kirshnagiri 635 001. Circle 1, [Pan: Aanps0770Q] Hosur. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, Fca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 21.11.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27.11.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 18.03.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Challenging Exparte Order Of The Ld. Cit(A).

For Appellant: Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, FCAFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

period 01.04.2016 to 31.03.2017 and since the assessee has not filed his return of income or replied to the notice under section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short], the entire sum was brought to tax and completed the assessment under 3 I.T.A. No.2434/Chny/24 section

M/S. Anabond Ltd., Chennai vs. PCIT, Chennai-1

In the result, all the grounds appeal raised by the assesse are allowed

ITA 1625/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1625/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2018-19 M/S. Anabond Limited The Principal Commissioner Of Type-Ii, 36, Dr. V.S.I. Estate Income Tax-1 Tiruvanmiyur, Chennai Chennai-600041. [Pan: Aacca4158Q] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri B.Ramakrishnan, F.C.A. अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri Nilay Baran Som, Cit प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02.09.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27.11.2024

For Appellant: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 35Section 5Section 80I

fact given by the Tribunal that the assessee had produced relevant material and offered explanation in pursuance of the notices issued under section 142(1) as well as section 143(2) and after considering those materials and explanation, the ITO had come to a definite conclusion. The Commissioner

ACIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur vs. Chandra Mohan Badaya, Jaipur

In the result the four appeals filed by the assessee stands

ITA 464/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Him In The Case Of The Assessee For All These Four Assessment Year.

For Appellant: Shri S. L. GuptaFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik (CIT-DR)
Section 143Section 69

case relevant to assessment of his income were called by means of a questionnaire. Later queries were raised vide notices under section 142(1) and/or Order Sheet Entries wherever deemed fit by the ld. AO. The assessing officer has discussed all the proposed addition which we reiterate to the extent

ACIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur vs. Chandra Mohan Badaya, Jaipur

In the result the four appeals filed by the assessee stands

ITA 463/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Him In The Case Of The Assessee For All These Four Assessment Year.

For Appellant: Shri S. L. GuptaFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik (CIT-DR)
Section 143Section 69

case relevant to assessment of his income were called by means of a questionnaire. Later queries were raised vide notices under section 142(1) and/or Order Sheet Entries wherever deemed fit by the ld. AO. The assessing officer has discussed all the proposed addition which we reiterate to the extent

ACIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur vs. Chandra Mohan Badaya, Jaipur

In the result the four appeals filed by the assessee stands

ITA 462/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Him In The Case Of The Assessee For All These Four Assessment Year.

For Appellant: Shri S. L. GuptaFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik (CIT-DR)
Section 143Section 69

case relevant to assessment of his income were called by means of a questionnaire. Later queries were raised vide notices under section 142(1) and/or Order Sheet Entries wherever deemed fit by the ld. AO. The assessing officer has discussed all the proposed addition which we reiterate to the extent

ACIT, CC-2, Jaipur, Income Tax Department vs. Chandra Mohan Badaya, Jaipur

In the result the four appeals filed by the assessee stands

ITA 427/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Him In The Case Of The Assessee For All These Four Assessment Year.

For Appellant: Shri S. L. GuptaFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik (CIT-DR)
Section 143Section 69

case relevant to assessment of his income were called by means of a questionnaire. Later queries were raised vide notices under section 142(1) and/or Order Sheet Entries wherever deemed fit by the ld. AO. The assessing officer has discussed all the proposed addition which we reiterate to the extent

Chandra Mohan Badaya, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result the four appeals filed by the assessee stands

ITA 423/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Him In The Case Of The Assessee For All These Four Assessment Year.

For Appellant: Shri S. L. GuptaFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik (CIT-DR)
Section 143Section 69

case relevant to assessment of his income were called by means of a questionnaire. Later queries were raised vide notices under section 142(1) and/or Order Sheet Entries wherever deemed fit by the ld. AO. The assessing officer has discussed all the proposed addition which we reiterate to the extent

Chandra Mohan Badaya, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result the four appeals filed by the assessee stands

ITA 422/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Him In

For Appellant: Shri S. L. GuptaFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik (CIT-DR)
Section 143Section 69

case relevant to assessment of his income were called by means of a questionnaire. Later queries were raised vide notices under section 142(1) and/or Order Sheet Entries wherever deemed fit by the Id. AO. The assessing officer has discussed all the proposed addition which we reiterate to the extent

Chandra Mohan Badaya, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

ITA 421/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Nov 2024AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri S. L. GuptaFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik (CIT-DR)
Section 143Section 69

case relevant to assessment of his income were called by means of a questionnaire. Later queries were raised vide notices under section 142(1) and/or Order Sheet Entries wherever deemed fit by the ld. AO. The assessing officer has discussed all the proposed addition which we reiterate to the extent

Chandra Mohan Badaya, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circel -2, Jaipur

ITA 404/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Him In The Case Of The Assessee For All These Four Assessment Year.

For Appellant: Shri S. L. GuptaFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik (CIT-DR)
Section 143Section 69

case relevant to assessment of his income were called by means of a questionnaire. Later queries were raised vide notices under section 142(1) and/or Order Sheet Entries wherever deemed fit by the ld. AO. The assessing officer has discussed all the proposed addition which we reiterate to the extent

Sri. Marala Reddy Sreenivas, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Bengaluru

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

ITA 1951/BANG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Nov 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

ITA No.1951/Bang/2024 Sri Marala Reddy Sreenivas, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE

Garima Bhushan, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Noida

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 882/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita No. 882/Del/2018, (A.Y.2015-16)

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 68

1 Garima Bhushan Vs. DCIT IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘C’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR

DCIT, Circle- 27(2), New Delhi vs. Wharton Engineers & Developers Pvt. Ltd. (Earlier Wilful Finance Investment Co. Pvt.), New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 7841/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Pradip Kumar Kedia & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit Vs. Wharton Engineers & Circle 27 (2) Developers Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi (Earlier Willful Finance Investment Co.Pvt.) New Delhi Pan No.Aaacw0629C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 37

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND

Firoj Ahmad, Lucknow vs. ITO-1(4), Lucknow

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

ITA 264/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Lucknow26 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2017-18 Firoz Ahmad Income Tax Officer-1(4) V. B-1174, Indira Nagar, Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, Lucknow-226016. Lucknow-226001. Pan:Adypa2072K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None (Adj. Application Filed) Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 14 11 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 26 11 2024 O R D E R

For Appellant: None (Adj. Application filed)For Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl
Section 48Section 50CSection 54

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “A”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI ANADEE NATH