“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)

Ghanshyambhai Ambalal Patel, Kheda vs. The PCIT-1, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1007/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Divyakant Parikh, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Prothviraj Meena, CIT-D.R

Section 147Section 263Section 69A

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “D” BENCH Before: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member And Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountant

Sajid Dastagir Sayyed, Latur vs. Ward 1 Latur, Latur

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

ITA 1181/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai

Section 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “बी” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA

Mohhamad Wajahat Ali Khan, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer (Int Taxn)-1, Hyderabad

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

ITA 848/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 848/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Mohd. Wajahat Ali Vs. Income Tax Officer Khan (International Taxation)-1 Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Eampk7060N (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 28/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 28/10/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Srinath Sadanala, DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 272ASection 272A(1)(d)Section 69A

ITA No.848 of 2024 Mohd Wajahat Ali Khan आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE

Vanasowrabha Associates, Warangal vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Warangal

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

ITA 439/HYD/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Oct 2024AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: Shri Pawan Kumar ChakrapaniFor Respondent: : Shri Ashish Kumar Shukla

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234A

date prescribed under section 139(1) of the Act, learned Assessing Officer is entitled as per the statute to issue notice under section 142(1) of the Act calling for the return of income. Without resorting to this statutory provision, the learned AO cannot directly proceed to reopen the assessment ... 15/04/2013, i.e. when theoriginal assessment proceedings were pending as time limit for issue of notice u/s 143 (2) did not expire. Section 142(1) and Section and Section 148 of the Act cannot operate simultaneously. There is no discretion vested with the Assessing Officer to utilize any one of them

Vaidyanathan Kalaivani, Chennai vs. PCIT, Chennai

Appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 1542/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. A.S. Sriraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Niay Baran Som, IRS, CIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 263Section 56(2)

aTaHe artteita aftr, v, zaraio,aag IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘a’ BENCH, CHENNAI aria stay par fay, =nfier

T V Sundaram Iyengar & Sons Limited, Madurai vs. DCIT, CC - 2, Madurai

Appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 1803/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1803/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2013-2014. M/S. T.V. Sundram Iyengar & The Deputy Commissioner Sons Private Limited, Vs. Of Income Tax, No.7B, Tvs Building, Corporate Circle 2, West Veli Street. Madurai. Madurai 625 001. Pan: Aabct 0159K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Irs, Cit

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baran Som, IRS, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 35DSection 391

expenses: It is seen that no query regarding Interest and Bank Charges was ever made by the Assessing Officer in the notice under section 142(1) (ii) of the Income Tax Act. The section head of Section 142(1) is Inquiry before Assessment. Absence of any item of query ... notice under section 142(1) of the Act bears testimony to the fact that the Assessing Officer failed to make any enquiry on the matter. It has been stated that the assessee had made submissions on the point of Interest and Bank Charges and demerger expenses, Be that

Alok Joshi, Uttrakhand vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3219/MUM/2024[AY 2008-09]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2024

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Ms. Kshipra Singhvi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 246ASection 271(1)(b)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL

DCIT-CC-5(3), Mumbai, Air India, Nariman Point vs. Aditya Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and that of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3044/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2021-22 Aditya Birla Sunlife Insurance Commissioner Of Income Tax Company Ltd., (A) – 54, 16Th Floor, Tower 1, One World Mumbai Vs. Centre, 841, Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Road, Mumbai – 400013 (Pan : Aabcb4623J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2021-22 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Aditya Birla Sunlife Tax – Central Circle – 5(3), Insurance Company Ltd., Mumbai 16Th Floor, Tower 1, One Vs. World Centre, 841, Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Road, Mumbai – 400013 (Pan : Aabcb4623J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Ronak Doshi, Ca Revenue : Shri Ajay Chandra, Cit Dr

For Appellant: Shri Ronak Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT DR

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234ASection 234BSection 37(1)Section 44Section 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL

Amratlal and Dhirajlal and Co, Mumbai vs. DCIT 23(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2875/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Gandhi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271FSection 694

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL

Aditya Birla Sunlife Insurance Company Limited, Mumbai vs. CIT (A) 54, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and that of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1828/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2024AY 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Ronak Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT DR

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234ASection 234BSection 37(1)Section 44Section 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL

Sunil Kumar Kukreja, Hisar vs. ITO Ward-4, Hisar

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1001/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usa.Yr. : 2017-18 Sunil Kumar Kukreja, Vs. Income Tax Officer, House No. 10A, Rajiv Nagar, Ward-4, Hisar Hisar Haryana – 125001 Haryana (Pan:Bcopk6853N) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Lalit Mohan, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Shashi Kajle, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND SHRI YOGESH

Sjvn Limited, Shimla Himachal Pradesh vs. ACIT, Shimla

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

ITA 150/CHANDI/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Oct 2024AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Sood, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 80I

assessee was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS by issuance of notice under section 143(2) dt. 29/06/2021. Thereafter notice under section 142(1) was issued and after calling for the information, explanation from the assessee, the assessment proceedings were completed by the AO passing the order under section

Aia Engioneering Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmedabad-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby allowed

ITA 310/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

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

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80G

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

Aia Engineering Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmedabad-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby allowed

ITA 309/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

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

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80G

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

Dinesh Ramanbhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1506/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1506/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Dinesh Ramanbhai Patel The Ito बनाम/ 23, Shyam Sharan Part-2 Ward-3(2)(1) V/S. Aarohi Club Road Ahmedabad Bopal-Ghuma Ahmedabad – 380 058 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Btbpp 3659 P अपीलाथ%/ (Appellant) &' यथ%/ (Respondent) ….. Assessee By : Shri Shri Kushal Fofaria, Ar Revenue By : Shri V.K. Mangla, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/10/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Shri Kushal Fofaria, ARFor Respondent: Shri V.K. Mangla, Sr.DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 250(6)Section 272ASection 272A(1)(d)Section 272A(3)(aa)Section 69

file his return of income for the AY 2017-18, as he claimed to have only agricultural income. The AO issued notices under Section 142(1) of the Act on multiple occasions, which were not complied with by the assessee. Consequently, the AO completed the assessment ex-parte under Section ... Subsequently, the AO initiated penalty proceedings under Section 272A(1)(d) of the Act for non- compliance with the notices under Section 142(1) of the Act and levied a penalty of Rs.20,000/- (Rs.10,000 for each notice). 3. The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A), NFAC

Navroz Munshi, Vadodara vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre Present Jurisdiction the ITO Ward-1(2)(2), Vadodara

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

ITA 1110/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1110/Ahd/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Navroz Munshi National Faceless Assessment बनाम A-301, Green Emerald Centre Present / B/H. Utopian Corner Jurisdiction The Ito V/S. New Alkapuri Ward-1(2)(3) Vadodara – 390 023 Vadodara – 390 007 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aojpm 8149 K अपीलाथ%/ (Appellant) &' यथ%/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rushin Patel, Ar Revenue By : Shri Veerbadram Vislavath, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/10/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Rushin Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri Veerbadram Vislavath, Sr.DR

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 271ASection 69A

assessee failed to file a return of income for the assessment year under consideration and did not respond to notices issued under Section 142(1) of the Act. Consequently, the AO passed a best judgment assessment under Section 144 of the Act, treating the cash deposits and credit entries

ITO Ward 1, Sangli vs. Balu Musa Dange, Sangli

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

ITA 930/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.930/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Income Tax Officer, V Balu Musa Dange, Ward-I, Sangli. S I Dsp Office Vishrambag, Sangli. Maharashtra – 416415. Pan: Ancpd1861F Appellant/ Revenue Respondent /Assessee Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde – Dr Date Of Hearing 10/10/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 25/10/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Dated 07.03.2024 Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act 1961. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “(I) Whether The Ld.Cit(A) Is Justified In Holding That If The Similar Addition Is Made In The Case Of Assessee’S Wife, The Addition In Case Of Assessee Shall Become Protective. (Ii) Whether The Ld.Cit(A) Is Justified In Deciding The Issue On The Basis Of Statement Of Fact, As The Assessee Did Neither Attend Before The Ao Nor Before The Cit(A).

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 251Section 251(1)

।आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ”ए” "ायपीठ पुणेम"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “A” :: PUNE BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH

Rajkamal Stone Metal Works, Ambegaon Khurd, Dist. Pune vs. ACIT Circle 5 Pune, Pune

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

ITA 691/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, Addl. CIT DR

Section 142(1)Section 2(47)Section 45Section 47

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

Pankaj Balasaheb Kokate, Ahmednagar vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Ahmednagar

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

ITA 1977/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri B.S.Rajpurohit

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 44ASection 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1977/PUN/2024

Imperial Housing, Pune vs. ITO, Ward-2(2), Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as the appeal filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1792/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 154(1)Section 35D

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