← 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)

Chethan Narayan, Hassan vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1109/BANG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri S.V Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 139Section 234Section 250Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH

M/S Matchless Investment Finance and Leasing Ltd, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appllate Centre, Mumbai

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

ITA 4066/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon'Ble

Section 142(1)Section 148Section 250

short “Act”) was issued and served upon the assessee which went un-responded. The Assessing Officer thereafter issued notice under section 142(1) of the Act which was also not responded. The Assessing Page No. 2 ITA NO. 4066/MUM/2023 (A.Y: 2011-12) M/s. Matchless Investment Finance and Leasing Ltd., Officer

Mahinder Chawla, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle Int. Tax- 1(2)(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 473/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Apr 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2020-21 Mahinder Chawla, Vs Acit, H-80, South Extension, Circle Int. Taxation 1(2)(1), New Delhi – 110 049. New Delhi. Pan: Acdpc9480B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : .04.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 31.01.2023 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi-42, (Hereinafter Referred As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or In Short Ld. ‘Faa’) In Appeal No.Cit(A), Delhi-42/10596/2019-20 Arising Out Of The Appeal Before It Against The Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’), By The Acit, Circle Int. Taxation 1(2)(1), New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao). 2. Heard & Perused The Records.

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 55

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : D : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND

Pingash Marketing Private Limited, Ballabhgarh vs. ITO Ward-2(1), Faridabad

In the result, Appeals in ITA No

ITA 99/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita No.84/Del/2021, A.Y.2016-17)

Section 143(1)Section 251(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 52(2)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘H’: NEW DELHI BEFORE DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI YOGESH

Gopesh Fabrics Pvt. Ltd., Ballabhgarh vs. ITO Ward-1(3), Faridabad

In the result, Appeals in ITA No

ITA 98/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita No.84/Del/2021, A.Y.2016-17)

Section 143(1)Section 251(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 52(2)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘H’: NEW DELHI BEFORE DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI YOGESH

Vidhi Cinemas Pvt.Ltd., Haryana vs. ITO Ward-2(5), Faridabad

In the result, Appeals in ITA No

ITA 88/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita No.84/Del/2021, A.Y.2016-17)

Section 143(1)Section 251(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 52(2)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘H’: NEW DELHI BEFORE DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI YOGESH

Zhilmil Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Haryana vs. ITO Ward-2(5), Faridabad

In the result, Appeals in ITA No

ITA 87/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita No.84/Del/2021, A.Y.2016-17)

Section 143(1)Section 251(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 52(2)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘H’: NEW DELHI BEFORE DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI YOGESH

Shanta Blankets Pvt. Ltd., Haryana vs. ITO Ward-2(3), Faridabad

In the result, Appeals in ITA No

ITA 84/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita No.84/Del/2021, A.Y.2016-17)

Section 143(1)Section 251(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 52(2)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘H’: NEW DELHI BEFORE DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI YOGESH

Dskn Jewellers, Delhi vs. ITO Ward-46(3), New Delhi

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 1051/DEL/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Anubhav Sharmadskn Jewellers Vs. Ito C/O. Mr. Samar Kapoor, Adv. Ward – 46(3) Chamber No.E-523, Karkardooma New Delhi Court, Delhi-32 Pan No. Aahfd 2162 M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Sumesh Swani, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 24.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.04.2024

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sumesh Swani, Sr. D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148(1)Section 149(1)(b)Section 151Section 27Section 271(1)(b)

quashed. 3. That the notices u/s 142(1) dated 11/07/2018, 15.11.2018, 20.11.2018, 12.12.2018, notice u/s 271(1)(b) dated 19/12/2018 and notice under section 142(1) r.w. Section144 dated 19/12/2018 were never served on the assessee as per Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 read with section

Kaushik Pravinchandra Gohel, Bhavnagar vs. The Assessing Officer, Ward-1(2), Bhavnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with respect to levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act for A

ITA 694/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri B. R. Popat, A.RFor Respondent: Shri H. Phani Raju, CIT DR
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69Section 69A

penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act on account of non-appearance by the assessee in response to notices issued under Section 142(1) of the Act. 25. Before us, the contention of the assessee was that the assessee is an individual, who is hailing from poor strata

Kaushik Pravinchandra Gohel, Bhavnagar vs. The Assessing Officer, Ward-1(2), Bhavnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with respect to levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act for A

ITA 693/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri B. R. Popat, A.RFor Respondent: Shri H. Phani Raju, CIT DR
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69Section 69A

penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act on account of non-appearance by the assessee in response to notices issued under Section 142(1) of the Act. 25. Before us, the contention of the assessee was that the assessee is an individual, who is hailing from poor strata

Kaushik Pravinchandra Gohel, Bhavnagar vs. The Assessing Officer, Ward-1(2), Bhavnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with respect to levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act for A

ITA 692/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri B. R. Popat, A.RFor Respondent: Shri H. Phani Raju, CIT DR
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69Section 69A

penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act on account of non-appearance by the assessee in response to notices issued under Section 142(1) of the Act. 25. Before us, the contention of the assessee was that the assessee is an individual, who is hailing from poor strata

Kaushik Pravinchandra Gohel, Bhavnagar vs. The Assessing Officer, Ward-1(2), Bhavnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with respect to levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act for A

ITA 691/AHD/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri B. R. Popat, A.RFor Respondent: Shri H. Phani Raju, CIT DR
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69Section 69A

penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act on account of non-appearance by the assessee in response to notices issued under Section 142(1) of the Act. 25. Before us, the contention of the assessee was that the assessee is an individual, who is hailing from poor strata

Kaushik Pravinchandra Gohel, Bhavnagar vs. The Assessing Officer, Ward-1(2), Bhavnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with respect to levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act for A

ITA 690/AHD/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri B. R. Popat, A.RFor Respondent: Shri H. Phani Raju, CIT DR
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69Section 69A

penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act on account of non-appearance by the assessee in response to notices issued under Section 142(1) of the Act. 25. Before us, the contention of the assessee was that the assessee is an individual, who is hailing from poor strata

Shri Rameshbhai N. Savaliya, Ahmedabad vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1124/AHD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2010-11 Smt. Lilaben Rameshbhai The Dy.Cit Savaliya Vs Central Circle-1(1) Legal Heir Of Rameshbhai Ahmedabad N.Savaliya 12, Paritosh Bungalows Satellite Ahmedabad – 380 015 Pan: Abjps 1312 D अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sanjay R. Shah, Ar Revenue By : Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 22/02/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/04/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Ms. Suchitra Kamblethis Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 18/01/2017 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)” In Short] For Assessment Year (Ay) 2010-11. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: 1. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad Has Erred In Law & On Facts Of The Case In Confirming The Addition Made By The Smt.Lilaben Rameshbhai .Savaliya Legal Heir Of Shri Rameshbhai N. Savaliya Asst.Year 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay R. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ ‘ए’, अहमदाबाद

Ganesh Sudhakar Suryawanshi, Jalgaon vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Jalgaon

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

ITA 1049/PUN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 68

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

Santipur Thana Co-Operative Agricultural Marketing Society Ltd., Nadia vs. DCIT, CPC, Bengalore

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

ITA 135/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(1)(ii)Section 80P

Kerala High Court held that a return filed by assessee beyond period stipulated under section 139(1) or 139(4) or under section 142(1) or section 148 can also be accepted and acted upon for entertaining claim raised under section 80P provided further proceedings in relation to such assessments

Jatrapur Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Ltd., Nadia vs. DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 134/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(1)(ii)Section 80P

Kerala High Court held that a return filed by assessee beyond period stipulated under section 139(1) or 139(4) or under section 142(1) or section 148 can also be accepted and acted upon for entertaining claim raised under section 80P provided further proceedings in relation to such assessments

Sridhar Sundaram, Tamil Nadu vs. Income Tax Officer, International Taxation, Ward-2(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for

ITA 256/BANG/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Apr 2024AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri George George Kshri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

Section 142(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU

Sai Service Private Limited, Pune vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-10, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1075/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1074 & 1075/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2018-19 Sai Service Private Limited, Dcit, Circle-10, Mumbai Pune Road, Vs Pune Phugewadi, Pune 411 012 Maharashtra Pan : Aabcs4998M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Smt. Deepa Khare– Ar Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak- Dr Date Of Hearing 22/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 16/04/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) In The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi Passed U/S.250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) On 04.09.2023 & 18.09.2023 Respectively For Assessment Years 2017-18 & 2018-19. Since Some Grounds Of Appeal Are Common In All These Appeals, We Proceed To Dispose Of These Appeals By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience. We Are Discussing A.Y.2017-18 Hereonwards.

Section 10Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 14ASection 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 80G

।आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ”बी” "ायपीठ पुणेम"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “B” :: PUNE BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL