← 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)

Rupmata Zilla Nagari Sahakari Pathsanstha Ltd., Osmanabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Latur

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

ITA 256/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.256/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Rupmata Zilla Nagari Sahakari Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Latur. Pathsanstha Ltd., Samarth Nagar, Osmanabad, Osmanabad- 413501. Pan : Aajfr0354D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Pratik Sandbhor Revenue By : Shri Sourabh Nayak Date Of Hearing : 27.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.06.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 18.12.2023 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. C1T(A) Erred In Not Condoning The Delay In Filing Of Appeal In As Much As The Appellant Received The Impugned Order Dated 29/03/2022 Only On 23/08/2022. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Assessing Officer Erred In Assessing The Total Income At Rs.3,79,38,930/-

For Appellant: Shri Pratik SandbhorFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 69A

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

Malda Zilla Regulated Market Committee, Englishbazar Malda vs. Ward 3(2) Malda, Malda

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

ITA 1054/KOL/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jun 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Pradip Kumar Choubey

Section 10Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 3(1)Section 69Section 69A

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

Income Tax Officer Ward 27(3) Haldia, Haldia vs. Goutam Guria, East Medinipur

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

ITA 1028/KOL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Pradip Kumar Choubey

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250

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

M/S Jila Sahakari Kendriya Bank, Khargone vs. ACIT-2, Indore

In the result the appeals of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 496/IND/2018[13-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore05 Jun 2024

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani(Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaatj0529K Assessee By Shri Subhash Jain, Ar Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit Date Of Hearing 29.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 05.06.2024 O R D E R

Section 143(3)Section 263

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY

Mohammed Sabir Babubhai Shaikh, Ahmedabad vs. ITO Ward 6(1), Jaipur

ITA 687/JPR/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Jun 2024AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Rohan SoganiFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Chaudhary, Addl. CIT (V. C)
Section 147Section 148

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR डा० एस. सीतालक्ष्मी, न्यायिक

Gumption Labs Finserve Private Limited, Kota vs. ITO Ward -2(2), Kota

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

ITA 417/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Meena, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

1 ITA 417/JP/2023 GUMPTION LABS FINSERVE PVT LTD VS ITO, WARD 2(2), KOTA आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर

Gobind Chhangomal Sajnani, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are allowed for

ITA 185/JPR/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Jun 2024AY 2009-10
For Respondent: Sh. Vedant Agrawal (CA)
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 253Section 271(1)(c)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR डा० एस. सीतालक्ष्मी, न्यायिक

Gobind Chhangomal Sajnani, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Jaipur

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are allowed for

ITA 184/JPR/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Jun 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Vedant Agrawal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehra (Addl. CIT)
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 253Section 271(1)(c)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh

Jananidhi Souharda Cooperative Limited, Bengaluru vs. ITO Ward 6(2)(5), Bmtc Bldg Koramangala Bengaluru

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

ITA 690/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, JCIT-DR
Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 234ASection 234BSection 250Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL

Pathapathi Vijayakumar, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-2(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 356/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Years : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar S.V, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vilas V Shinde, CIT (DR)
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 249(2)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI WASEEM AHMED

Veena Bhan, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(3)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 319/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore05 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmedr Assessment Year : 2013-14 Smt. Veena Bhan, Vs. Ito, Flat No.106B, Ward – 6(3)1), Sterling Park Sahakaranagar, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 092. Pan : Alipb 6489 R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Ms. Matta Padma, Addl. Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 05.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.06.2024

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Matta Padma, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(b)

bank account with J & K Bank, notice under section 148 of the Act was issued. During the course of reassessment proceedings, notices under section 142(1) of the Act were issued on 25.09.2020, 04.02.2021, 05.08.2021 and 20.08.2021. Since there was no response from the assessee’s side to the notices ... issued under section 142(1) of the Act, the assessment was completed on best judgment basis under section 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act wherein the entire cash deposit amounting to Rs.12,80,000/- was added to the total income. 4. Pursuant to the assessment being completed under section

Sri Shankar Souhardha Pattina Sahakari Niyamit, Gulbarga vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC

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

ITA 877/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Om Prakash Kant

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 148ASection 156Section 2(24)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

provisions of section 148 of "the Act" declaring total income at Rs. Nil. Since the assessee has not complied the notice under section 142(1) and show cause notice was given and last opportunity was afforded before completing the assessment under Page | 2 ITA No. 877/Mum/2024 SRI Shankar Souhardha Pattina

Ram Vasdev Bathija, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

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

ITA 452/MUM/2024[A Y 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jun 2024

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicialmember & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri.Ashwin Jain, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr.DR
Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250Section 270Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIALMEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT

Rahul Chandrakant Jhaveri, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 8(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 4509/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jun 2024AY 2014-15
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 144Section 153ASection 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘D’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL

Ind Swift Laboratories Ltd., Chandigarh vs. DCIT, Circle 1(1), Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal is allowed, as indicated

ITA 350/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri T.N.Singla, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 250Section 35Section 35(1)Section 35(1)(i)Section 35(2)

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

Aargee Enterprises, Kaithal vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Rohtak

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 508/CHANDI/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Y.P. Rawla, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR
Section 115BSection 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

were paid at normal rate of tax. 5. It was submitted that during the course of assessment proceedings, the AO vide notice under section 142(1) dt. 23/08/2019 specifically inquired about the income surrendered during the course of survey and in response the assessee filed his submissions dt. 29/08/2019 ... head business income at the normal rate of tax. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO in the notice issued under section 142(1) dt. 23/08/2019 has asked the assessee to specifically explain the details about the business income amounting to Rs. 100,00,000/- surrendered during the course

Hinima Atul Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(3)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 933/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 234ASection 68

Accordingly, notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 24.09.2018 which was served on the assessee electronically. Thereafter, notice under Section 142(1) was issued on 05.10.2019 and 17.06.2019 calling for details such as return of income, computation etc., cash book, Bank statement and source of cash

M/S. Classic Citi Investments Private Limited, Pune vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Pune

Appeal is allowed for statistical

ITA 437/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Gd Padmahshali

For Appellant: Shri Sanket M. JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 32

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “A” BENCH : PUNE : BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GD

Om Kothari Foundation, Jaipur, Rajasthan vs. ITO, (Exemption) Ward-1, Jaipur, Rajasthan

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 57/JPR/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Jun 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Anish Maheshwari, CAFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl.CIT
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)Section 13(1)(d)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 164(2)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U

Smt. Rajni Gutpa, Alwar vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Alwar

ITA 44/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT
Section 127Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 69

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh