← 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)

Income Tax Officer, Dharamshala vs. The Rainkh Cooperative Agriculture Service Society Ltd., Kangra

ITA 404/CHANDI/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No. 404/Chd/2025 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20 The Ito, The Rainkh Co-Operative Agriculture Dharamshala (Hp). Vs Service Society Ltd., Vpo-Sehorpain, Tehsil-Jwalamukhi Distt. Kangra (Hp). "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aadat4807C अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Vinod Kumar Chaudhary, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 12.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.01.2026 Physical Hearing O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar Chaudhary, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ,च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, ‘B’ CHANDIGARH

Sachin Dattatray Jadhav, Satara vs. ITO Ward-3, Satara

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

ITA 2617/PUN/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jan 2026AY 2018-2019

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vijaykumar N. KashirsagarFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh B. Budruk
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 2Section 69A

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

Sapana Dharmendra Shah, Malegaon vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward -1, Malegaon

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

ITA 2217/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2217/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Sapana Dharmendra Shah, The Income Tax Officer, Khodiyar Bhavan, Ramsetu, Ward – 1, Malegaon Opp. Gayatri Mangal Karyala, Vs. Malegaon, Nashik-423203 Pan : Belps3009B अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sanjeev Mutha (Virtual) Department By : Shri Manish Mehta Date Of Hearing : 20-01-2026 Date Of 27-01-2026 Pronouncement : आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 22.08.2024 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)/Nfac”] Pertaining To Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2018-19. 2. Briefly Stated The Facts Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Did Not File His Return Of Income For Ay 2018-19. Based On The Information Flagged By The Cbdt Through Insight Portal Under The Head “Nms Category”, It Was Found That During The Relevant Ay 2018-19, The Assessee Had Deposited Cash Of Rs.2,91,03,000/- In Her Bank Account Maintained With The Malegaon Merchant‟S Co-Op Bank Ltd. In The Name Of M/S Shree Kakaji Masale & Foods. Further, There Is Also Tds Made To The Tune Of Rs.1,524/- U/S 194A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The “Act”) On „Interest Other Than „Interest On Securities‟ Against A Total Credit Of Rs.15,240/- By The Malegaon Merchant‟S Co-Op Bank Ltd., Which Has Not Been Disclosed To The Department. Since, The Assessee Had Not Filed Her Return Of Income, Notice U/S 148 Of The Act Was Issued On 05.04.2022 Which Was Duly Served Upon The Assessee. In Response Thereto, The Assessee Did Not File Her Return Of Income. Thereafter, Notice U/S 142(1) Of The Act As Well As Show Cause Notice Were Issued, In Response To Which The Assessee Filed Certain

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Mutha (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Manish Mehta
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 194ASection 69A

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

Natungram Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Limited, Murshidabad vs. ITO, Ward 42(1), Murshidabad

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

ITA 905/KOL/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Jan 2026AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 251Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘C’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT

Power Security Corp Pvt Ltd, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corp Ward 5(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeal No

ITA 3509/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Ms.Varsha Sridhar, Advocate for Mr.Y.Sridhar, F.C.AFor Respondent: Mr.SBR Kumar Laghimsetti, Addl.CIT
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250(6)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI

Power Security Corp Pvt Ltdq, Chennai vs. ITO, Non Corp Ward 5(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeal No

ITA 3508/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Ms.Varsha Sridhar, Advocate for Mr.Y.Sridhar, F.C.AFor Respondent: Mr.SBR Kumar Laghimsetti, Addl.CIT
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250(6)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI

Power Security Corp Pvt Ltd, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corp Ward 5(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeal No

ITA 3507/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Ms.Varsha Sridhar, Advocate for Mr.Y.Sridhar, F.C.AFor Respondent: Mr.SBR Kumar Laghimsetti, Addl.CIT
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250(6)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI

Power Security Corp Pvt Ltd, Chennai vs. ITO, Non Corp Ward 5(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeal No

ITA 3506/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Ms.Varsha Sridhar, Advocate for Mr.Y.Sridhar, F.C.AFor Respondent: Mr.SBR Kumar Laghimsetti, Addl.CIT
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250(6)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI

Periyagounder Ramasamy, Salem vs. ITO, Ward-1(6), Salem

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for

ITA 3311/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Manu Kumar Giri

For Appellant: Mr. S. BhupendranFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 272A(1)(d)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ’बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI सु"ी प

Periyagounder Ramasamy, Salem vs. ITO, Ward-1(6), Salem

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for

ITA 3309/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Manu Kumar Giri

For Appellant: Mr. S. BhupendranFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 272A(1)(d)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ’बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI सु"ी प

Mani Sridhar, Chennai vs. CIT (A), Chennai

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

ITA 3292/CHNY/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Jan 2026AY 2016-2017

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Manu Kumar Giri

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69A

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ’बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI सु"ी प

Adarsha Souharda Sahakari Niyamit Sirsi, Sirsi vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Huballi

ITA 1165/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Prakash Hegde, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Shivanand H Kalakeri, D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80P(2)(a)

ITA No.1165/Bang/2025 Adarsha Souharda Sahakari Niyamit, Sirsi Page 1 of 30 ITA No.1165/Bang/2025 Adarsha Souharda Sahakari Niyamit, Sirsi IN THE

Ladderup Finance Limited, Mumbai vs. Circle 14(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 7404/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarladderup Finance Circle 14(1)(1), Limited Mumbai 1St Floor Hallmark Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Business Plaza, Mumbai-400 020 Gurunanak Hospital Road, Bandra (East), Mumbai- 400051 Pan/Gir No. Aaacl0882G (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rushabh Mehta Revenue By Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 27.01.2026

Section 10(34)Section 10(38)Section 111ASection 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

issued and served upon the assessee. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Ld. Assessing Officer issued several notices under section 142(1) along with questionnaires calling for details and explanations. The assessee furnished submissions and supporting details from time to time, which were placed on record. 3 Ladderup Finance ... shall be as under: a. In „Limited Scrutiny‟ cases, the reasons/issues shall be forthwith communicated to the assessee concerned. b. The Questionnaire under section 142(1) of the Act in „Limited Scrutiny‟ cases shall remain confined only to the specific reasons/issues for which case has been picked up for scrutiny

ACIT Cir-19(1), New Delhi vs. Shipra Bansal, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4474/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICAL MEMBER, SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153Section 153ASection 153C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH

Geetanjali Bhayana, Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-32 Delhi, New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the assessee for AY 2019-20 and AY

ITA 2252/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153Section 153CSection 250Section 250(6)

ITA No.2227, 2228 & 2252/Del/2025 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “B” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL

Geetanjali Bhayana, Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-32 Delhi, New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the assessee for AY 2019-20 and AY

ITA 2228/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153Section 153CSection 250Section 250(6)

ITA No.2227, 2228 & 2252/Del/2025 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “B” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL

Geetanjali Bhayana, Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-32 Delhi, New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the assessee for AY 2019-20 and AY

ITA 2227/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153Section 153CSection 250Section 250(6)

ITA No.2227, 2228 & 2252/Del/2025 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “B” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL

ITO Ward - 20(3), New Delhi vs. Quetzal Exim Pvt Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Department of Revenue is allowed

ITA 717/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 250(6)Section 56Section 56(2)

sources and have correctly been offered for tax. Notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued electronically on 05.07.2017. Notice under Section 142(1) of the Act were issued. Assessee filed electronically responses to the notices. On completion of proceedings, Ld. AO vide order dated 28.12.2018, assessed income

Ritesh Kumar Gupta, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-5, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 688/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year 2011-12 Assessment Year 2012-13 Assessment Year 2013-14 Assessment Year 2014-15 Assessment Year 2016-17 Assessment Year 2017-18 Ritesh Kumar Gupta, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of C-195, Opp. Mother Dairy Income Tax, Central Circle Booth, Nirmal Vihar, 5, New Delhi Vikas Marg, Delhi-110092 Pan No. Actpg0839J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271FSection 68

Section 271F of the Act dated 31.07.2018. The assessee filed return of income on 17.10.2018 declaring income of Rs.12,30,589/-. Notice under Section 142(1) of the Act for the year issued on 09.10.2018 and 27.11.2018. Notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 07.12.2018. Show

Meka Viraj Gopal Apparao, Nuzvid vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward -3(1), Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 232/VIZ/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaraआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.232/Viz./2025 Assessment Year 2015-2016 Meka Viraj Gopal Apparao, Kotapadu Estate, Nuzvid The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Mandal, Krishna Ward-3(1), District. Vijayawada – 520 002. Pin – 521 201. Pan Bgapm1891G (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Sri Mv Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 20.01.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 23.01.2026 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Sri MV Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148A

1 ITA.No.232/VIZ./2025 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH : VISAKHAPATNAM AT HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO