“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)

Sharma Yegnanarayana Praturi, Hyderabad vs. ITO (Int Taxn)-2, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 542/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.542/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Sharma Yegnnarayana Vs. Income Tax Officer Praturi, Hyderabad (International Pan:Biopp9553A Taxation)2, Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Kumar Pal Tated, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. Sheetal Sarin, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 05/06/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 12/06/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri Kumar Pal Tated, CAFor Respondent: : Smt. Sheetal Sarin, DR

ITA No 542 of 2023 Sharma Yegnnarayana Praturi आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE

Topmost Dealmark Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 9(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 540/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 540/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Topmost Dealmark Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward – 9(1), 5/1, 4Th Floor Vs Kolkata Room No. 125, Clive Row Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aaect0270C] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Siddarth Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Kundu, Addl. Cit D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05/06/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 20/12/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of 26 Days In Filing Of This Appeal. Affidavit Has Been Filed In Support Of The Prayer For Condonation Of Delay & The Delay Is Mainly On Account Of The Ill Health Of The Accountant Of The Assessee Concern Which Restrained Him To Look After The Regular Office Affairs & Could Not Check The Income Tax Portal From Time To Time. At A Later Stage When It Was Found That Ex-Parte Order Has Already Been Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), The Assessee Preferred Appeal Before This Tribunal. Under These Circumstances

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, Addl. CIT D/R

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 35DSection 68

| आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "यायपीठ, कोलकाता | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE DR. MANISH BORAD, HON’BLE

Shri Ankit Kumar Gupta, Gangtok vs. ACIT, Cir. 3(2), Gangtok

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

ITA 388/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Pradip Kumar Choubey

Section 10Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण कोलकाता 'एसएमसी' पीठ, कोलकाता में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘SMC’ BENCH, KOLKATA डॉ. मनीष

M/S Rockbed Renovators Ltd., Bhopal vs. The PCIT-1, Bhopal

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 214/IND/2023[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Indore12 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanirockbed Renovators Ltd. Pr. Cit-1 7-A, Panjabi Bagh Raisen Road Bhopal Govindpura Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaacr7151G Assessee By Shri Gagan Tiwari Ar Revenue By Ms. Ila Parmar, Cit- Dr Date Of Hearing 10.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 12.06.2024

Section 143(3)Section 196CSection 263

assessee in respect of purchase of property and construction of residential house on the said land. The AO, thereafter issued notice under section 142(1) dated 14.07.2017 along with a questionnaire. These facts are also evident from the assessment order in para 1 and 2 as under :- " Thereafter, the case ... check basis. After discussion with the A/R of the assessee, the returned income is accepted." Thus in response to the notice issued under section 142(1), the assessee attended the proceedings through her A/R and also furnished the required details/documents as well as books of account which were examined

Devasakayam Aangilappalliparipalana Sabai, Madurai vs. ITO, Exemptions Ward, Madurai

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

ITA 399/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.399/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Devasakayam Aangilappalliparipalana Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Sabai, 22, Vilacheri Road, Exemptions Ward, Tirupparankundram, Pasumalai, Madurai. Madurai 625 004. [Pan: Aaatd0964E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Akash, Advocate & Shri G. Baskar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 05.06.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.06.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 03.01.2024 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised 7 Grounds Of Appeal Amongst Which, The Only Effective Issue Arises For Our Consideration Is To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Was Justified In Confirming The Penalty Imposed By The 2

For Appellant: Shri G. Akash, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 271(1)(b)

proceedings under section 271(1)(b) of the Act were initiated by the Assessing Officer for non-compliance of two notices issued under section 142(1) of the Act. According to the Assessing Officer, two notices dated 28.06.2021 and 08.02.2022 were issued asking the assessee to furnish the details required ... website at that time and even long afterwards. The ld. AR submits that the assessee fully complied with the notice issued under section 142(1) of the Act and the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer is not justified. 5. According to the ld. DR Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl

Narendradevakumar Ambika, Pollachi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Pollachi

In the result the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 356/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.356/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2017-18 Narendradevakumar Ambika, Income Tax Officer, No.33, Osp Street, Odaiyakulam, Ward-1, Pollachi, Tamil Nadu-642129. Pollachi, [Pan: Blopa2062E] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri H.Yeshwanth Kumar, C.A. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Arv Srinivasan, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.06.2024

For Appellant: Shri H.Yeshwanth Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri ARV Srinivasan, Addl.CIT

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, ‘ए’ न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI श्री यस यस विश्िनेत्र रवि

Sjlt Textiles Private Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Corp Cricle 6(2), Nungambakkam Chennai

In the result the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 671/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.671/Chny/2023 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2017-18 Sjlt Textiles Private Limited Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 2E Second Floor, Prince Arcade Corp Circle-6(2), Chennai. Cathedral Road, Chennai-86 [Pan: Aaics2028M] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Ms.Sandyaarthi, Ca प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Arv Srinivasan, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.06.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.06.2024

For Appellant: Ms.Sandyaarthi, CAFor Respondent: Shri ARV Srinivasan, Addl.CIT

Section 115BSection 250Section 69A

ITO Int Taxn Ward, Tuticorin Chennai vs. Shri Abdul Rahman Viswa Abdul Salam, Chennai

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 654/CHNY/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.654/Chny/2023 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2014-15 Income-Tax Officer, Shri Abdul Rahman Viswas Abdul International Taxation Ward, Salam, No.64/114, Kalvath Nayagam Tuticorin, Tamil Nadu Street, Kadayanallur, Tenkasi Dist, Tn-627751 [Pan: Apppa9666L] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr.Abhishek Murali, Ca प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Arv Srinivasan, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.06.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.06.2024

For Appellant: Mr.Abhishek Murali, CAFor Respondent: Shri ARV Srinivasan, Addl.CIT

Section 129Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144C(2)Section 147Section 250

Nice Interactive Solutions India Private Limited, Pune, Maharashtra vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bengaluru

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

ITA 719/BANG/2024[AY 2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jun 2024

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2018-19

For Respondent: Shri Aliasgar Rampurwala, CA &

Section 10ASection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI. LAXMI PRASAD SAHU

M/S. Corporate Leisure & Property Development Pvt Ltd., Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -2(4), Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 652/BANG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jun 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Sri Shantilal G., A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R

Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 263

accordance with law. Against this assessee is in appeal before us. 3. The ld. A.R. submitted that during the assessment proceedings, notices under Section 142(1) of the Act were issued, requesting explanations regarding cash seized, loans advanced, seized material, etc. the appellant had diligently provided voluminous replies, furnishing ... advancing substantial justice. 3.2 It is relevant to mention that the assessing officer during the course of assessment proceedings vide notice issued under section 142(1) of the Act dated 13.08.2021 has sought for the source of M/s. Corporate Leisure & Property Development Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 6 of 19 cash

DCIT, Central Circle-1, Mangaluru vs. Usk Construction Company Dp, Udupi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 647/BANG/2023[2019]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jun 2024

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K., Judciial Member Assessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Thamba Mahendra, Jt.CIT(DR), BengaluruFor Respondent: Shri Shiva Prasad Reddy, ITP

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 44A

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

Calcom Realty Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 3(1)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 979/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S. Calcom Realty Pvt. Ltd. Unit No. 34A, 2Nd Floor, Arsiwala Building, Colaba Maharashtra – 400 005 Pan: Aadcc1764B ..... Appellant Vs. Ito 3(1)(3) Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai- 400 020 ..... Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Madhu Malati Ghosh, Ld. DR

Section 10(38)Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “C”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL

K & P Enterprises, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 22(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1318/MUM/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jun 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi T A. No. 1318, 1319 & 1320/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2013-14)

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, “E” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY

Rahul Gangaram Kanagandula, Maharastra vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-20(3)(1), Maharastra

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 3797/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

return was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS. Statutory notices u/s. 143(2) and section 142(1) of the Act were issued and served upon the assessee. The appellant assessee was asked to explain discrepancies in the books of assessee