← 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)

Rahemul Khandaker, Coochbehar vs. I.T.O., Ward - 2(1), Coochbehar

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

ITA 1819/KOL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Nov 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No. 1819/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Rahemul Khandaker,………………………………Appellant Singejani, Bhetaguri, P.O. Bhetaguri, Dist. Coochbehar-736134 [Pan:Ckapk7117G] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………………………Respondent Ward-2(1), Coochbehar, Aayakar Bhawan, Debi Bari (North), Coochbehar-736101 Appearances By: Shri Sujit Basu, A.R. & Shri Rajib Mukharjee, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Akhil Kumar, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: November 11, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: November 25, 2024 O R D E R

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69

deposited cash totaling to Rs.22,11,000/- in the Bank account held with United Bank of India, Bhetaguri Branch, Coochbehar. Notice under section 142(1) of the Act was issued to the assessee requiring to file true and correct return of income for the assessment year 2017-18. However ... assessee failed to submit his return of income as required by the notice under 2 Rahemul Khandaker section 142(1) of the Act, which led to initiation of proceeding under section 144 of the Income Tax Act. Even in absence of compliance from the assessee, the ld. Assessing Officer proceeded

Aniruddha Kundu, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 62(1), Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1498/KOL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Nov 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.1498/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Aniruddha Kundu…..………………........………………....Appellant 604, 99 Spruce Place, Sw, Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, T3C3X7. [Pan: Aphpk9684E] Vs. Ito, Ward-1(3), Midnapore….…….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri S.P Datta, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Roma Chaudhury, Jcit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 25, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 25, 2024 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 12.06.2024 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 The Assessee Is An Individual & Earning Income Abroad During The Relevant Period. The Assessing Officer Obtained Information That Gross Total Income Of The Assessee During The Assessment Year Amounting To Rs.59,49,229/- Was Comprised Of Proceed From Epf Maturity Of Rs.2,56,041/-, Lic Maturity Of Rs.26,92,564/-, Interest Income Of Rs.39/-, Payment Made To Non- Residents Of Rs.331/-. The Assessee Also Made Investment Of Rs.14,00,000/- & Rs.16,00,000/- Into Two Bank Term Deposits Claimed To Be A Genuine Source Of The Income. A Notice U/S 148 Of The Act Issued To The Assessee Followed By Notice U/S 142(1) Of The Act.

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 250

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

Sri Veeraraghavan Mannappanaickar, Kanchipuram vs. ITO, Ncw-22(5), Tambaram

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

ITA 2468/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member), SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri R. Viswanathan, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha, IRS, Addl. CIT
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69

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

Gangadharappa Munindra Kumar, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1921/BANG/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Smt. Lakshmi, A.RFor Respondent: Sri V. Parithivel, D.R
Section 115BSection 234ASection 250Section 69A

ITANo.1921/Bang/2024 Gangadharappa Munindra Kumar, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE PRESIDENT

Ichettira Mandappa Machaiah, Kodagu vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Madikeri

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

ITA 1782/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Sri Sandeep Chalapathy, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Ganesh R Gale, Standing counsel for department
Section 10(1)Section 115BSection 142Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

ITA No.1782/Bang/2024 Ichettira Mandappa Machaiah, Kodagu IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT

Mr. Nateshan Sampath, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 1778/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Sri Mahesh G., A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, D.R
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 147Section 250

ITA No.1778/Bang/2024 Mr. Nateshan Sampath, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT

Darekoppa Krishnaiahshetty Kesha vs. Hetty, Bangalorevs.Income Tax Officer Ward 6(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1738/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Smt. Manasa Ananthan, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Ganesh R. Gale, Standing counsel for department

ITA No.1738/Bang/2024 DarekoppaKrishnaiahshettyKeshavshetty, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND

S A S Traders, Kolar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Kolar

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

ITA 1576/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri R. Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian, S., Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 142(1)Section 148Section 249(4)Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K

Sejal Nirmam Kothari, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-Ward. 19(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5318/MUM/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant

For Appellant: Shri Dharan GandhiFor Respondent: Date of Hearing - 21/11/2024
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250Section 254Section 271ASection 69A

year under consideration. The return filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS and statutory notices under section 143(2) and section 142(1) were issued and served on the assessee. During the assessment proceedings, it was observed that the assessee has deposited cash amounting to Rs.20 lakh

M/S. Jindal Drugs Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 3(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3724/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S.Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailjindal Drugs Pvt. Ltd. 12A, 12Th Floor, Bakhtawar, 229, Nariman Point, Mumbai Maharashtra - 400021 ……………. Appellant Pan: Aaacj1000A V/S

For Appellant: Shri Rahul HakkaniFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Meena, Sr.DR
Section 147Section 151Section 250Section 69C

Mint Agro Tech Pvt. Ltd. made during the year under consideration. Since the assessee could not respond to the notice issued under section 142(1) of the Act, a show cause notice was issued on 29/11/2019. After perusing the bills and vouchers submitted by the assessee in regard

United Brothers Multiplast LLP (Successor to M/S United Brothers), Mumbai vs. PCIT-17, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2919/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S.Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailunited Brothers Multiplast Llp (Successor To M/S. United Brothers) 301, Heritage Plazza, A Wing, R.S. Maharaj Marg, Teli Gali, ……………. Appellant Cross Lane, Andheri (E), Mumbai, Maharashtra – 400069 Pan: Aaafu0314K V/S

For Appellant: Shri V.G. GindeFor Respondent: Shri Ankush Kapoor, CIT (DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 263(1)

return of income on 25.04.2021 declaring an income of Rs.Nil. 3 During the re-assessment proceedings, statutory notices under section 143(2) and section 142(1) along with questionnaire were issued and served on the assessee. After considering the response of the partnership firm, the Assessing Officer (“AO”) vide order ... From the paper book filed by the assessee, we find that during the 6 reassessment proceedings, statutory notices under section 143(2) and section 142(1) were issued and served on the partnership firm which was duly responded to by it. From its reply filed on 21.12.2021, forming part

Dow Chemical International Private Limited, Thane vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - 14(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 3772/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Rajan VoraFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Sr. AR /
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 32

normal provisions of the Act. The return filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny 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, from the perusal of the profit and loss account filed

Dow Chemicals International Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Ta-14(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 1200/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Rajan VoraFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Sr. AR /
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 32

normal provisions of the Act. The return filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny 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, from the perusal of the profit and loss account filed

Sho Singh Tyagi, Ghaziabad vs. ITO Ward-2(2)(3), Ghaziabad

ITA 3300/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roysho Singh Tyagi Vs. Ito, Ward-2(2)(3) B-305, Raj Nagar Cgo Complex-Ii, Kamla Residency, Raj Nagar Nehru Nagar, Ext. Ghaziabad (Up) Hapur Chungi 201017 Ghaziabad- 201002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aekpt2974E Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Sahil Sharma, Adv &For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148

PCIT, Ghaziabad, notice under Section 148 of the Act dated 26.03.2019 was issued and served upon the assessee. Subsequently, on 06.08.2019 notice under Section 142(1) was issued and following the other procedures the assessment was finalized upon making addition of the said cash deposit made by the assessee, since

Faridabanu Shaikh, Ahmedabad vs. Ward 3(3)(1) Ahmedabad, Pratyaksha Kar Bhawan

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

ITA 936/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumarms. Suchitra Kambleआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.936/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Faridabanu Shaikh The Ito बनाम/ C/O. Humera Packaging Ward-3(3)(1) V/S. Plot No.15,Nr. Sardar Palace Hotel Ahmedabad Sarkhej Sanand Highway, Sanand Ahmedabad – 380 055 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aqgps 1044 J (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, A.R. Revenue By : Shri C. Dharani Nath, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19/11/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/11/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri C. Dharani Nath, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद "ायपीठ SMC, अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “ SMC ” BENCH, AHMEDABAD ] BEFORE DR. BRR KUMAR

Faeza Nisarahmed Soniwala, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(1) (Previously Ward-5(3)(5), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1518/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra R. Kambleassessment Year : 2017-18 Faeza Nisarahmed Soniwala Vs. The Ito, Ward-5(3)(1) A-605, M.B. Tower Ahmedabad. Opp: Cama Hotel Nr. Asopalav Flats Khanpur Ahmedabad 380 001. Pan : Bxops 6918 K (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri Vipul Khandhar, Ar : Shri Dharnidas V.S., Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21/11/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/11/2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Khandhar, AR
Section 115ASection 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR. BRR KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. SUCHITRA R. KAMBLE

Baroda Gujarat Gramin Bank, Vadodara vs. The Dy.CIT., Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

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

ITA 1454/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 270A

levied penalty u/s. 270A of the Act. 6. We have considered rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. In reply to Section 142(1) notice dated 28-12- 2020, the assessee explained as follows: “ ….. 3) Details of exempt income earned during the year. The bank has not earned

Rakeshkumar Shamalbhai Sharma, Gandhinagar vs. The ITO, Ward-3, Gandhinagar

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

ITA 1256/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumarms. Suchitra Kambleआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1256/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2012-13 Rakeshkumar Shamalbhai Sharma The Ito बनाम/ Sampa, Dehgam Ward-3 V/S. Gandhinagar – 382 315 Gandhinagar (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Bjaps 9160 B (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tej Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri C. Dharani Nath, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20/11/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/11/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Tej Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri C. Dharani Nath, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 69Section 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद "ायपीठ SMC, अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “ SMC ” BENCH, AHMEDABAD ] BEFORE DR. BRR KUMAR

Sanjaykumar Virabhai Patel, Panchmahal vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Godhra

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 881/AHD/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Or In The Course Of Hearing Of The Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Hardik Vora, A.RFor Respondent: Shri C. Dharani Nath, Sr. D.R
Section 142(1)Section 148Section 271ASection 69A

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “SMC” BENCH Before: Dr. BRR Kumar , Vice President And Ms. Suchitra Kamble , Judicial Member

Sanjaykumar Virabhai Patel, Panchmahal vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Godhra

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 880/AHD/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Or In The Course Of Hearing Of The Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Hardik Vora, A.RFor Respondent: Shri C. Dharani Nath, Sr. D.R
Section 142(1)Section 148Section 271ASection 69A

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “SMC” BENCH Before: Dr. BRR Kumar , Vice President And Ms. Suchitra Kamble , Judicial Member