“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)

Dilip Kumar, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-36(6), Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 100/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Delhi19 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2017-18

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

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year

Wisteria Advertisement Private Limited, H vs. ITO Ward -2(3), Faridabad, C. R. Building

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3278/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.3278/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(b)

I.T.A.No.3278/Del/2023 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Inderjit Singh, Sangrur vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward- Sangrur, Sangrur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 605/CHANDI/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Mar 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: The Cit(A) Has Not Been Considered Properly. 4. That The Appellant Craves Leave To Add Or Amend The Grounds Of Appeal Before The Appeal Is Finally Heard Or Disposed Off.” 3. During The Course Of Hearing, The Ld Ar Submitted That This Is A Case Of An Individual Who Is An Agriculturist. Notice Under Section 142(1) Dated 09.03.2018 Was Issued In The Case Of The Assessee For Filling The Return Of Income. The Department Issued The Said Notice To The Assessee On Account Of Information With The Department

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 69

During the course of hearing, the ld AR submitted that this is a case of an individual who is an agriculturist. Notice under section 142(1) dated 09.03.2018 was issued in the case of the Assessee for filling the return of income. The department issued the said notice

Konathala Nooku Naidu, Anakapalle vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Anakapalle

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 269/VIZ/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.269/Viz/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Konathala Nooku Naidu, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Anakapalle. Ward-1, Pan: Aczpn 4551 C Anakapalle. (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar प्रत्यधर्थी की ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 12/03/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of : 18/03/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy:

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

आयकर अपीलीयअधिकरण, विशाखापटणम SMC पीठ, विशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM श्री दुव्िूरु आर एल रेड्डी

Star Tradecom Private Limited., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 9(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 52/KOL/2023[2009-2010]Status: FixedITAT Kolkata18 Mar 2024AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Vikas Surana, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar, CIT, DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 263

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT

Ranisati Hosiery (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. PCIT-4, Kolkata.

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1278/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.1278/Kol/2023 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Ranisati Hosiery (P) Ltd…….….…………............…...……………....Appellant Siddha Weston, Room No.126, 9, Weston Street, Kolkata – 700013. [Pan: Aafcr2959B] Vs. Pcit-4, Kolkata…………..….............................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Rajeeva Kumar & Giridhar Dhelia, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 31, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 18, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Revision Order Dated 12.03.2019 Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-4, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Pcit’] Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. As Per The Note Of The Registry, The Appeal Is Time Barred By 1722 Days. A Separate Application For Condonation Of Delay Has Been Filed Which Is Further Supported With The Affidavit Of Shri Bhupendra Bansal, Director Of The Assessee Company. It Has Been Explained That The Impugned Order Dated 12.03.2019. That The Copy Of The Order Was Not Served Upon The Assessee. That The Assessee Came To Know About The Passing Of The Impugned Order Only After The Receipt Of The Subsequent Assessment Order Passed U/S 144 R.W.S. 263 Of The Act. The Assessee

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 263

furnish details relating to the receipt of share capital of Rs.2170250/- along with premium of Rs.140429750/- totalling Rs.142600000/-. In response to notice under section 142(1), the assessee furnished requisitioned details & documents on 03.03.2015. Notices under section 133(6) were issued to the subscribers of shares for the purpose

Sohanlalji Ashok Seervi, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(2), Bengaluru

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

ITA 285/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Choudhry & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessmentyear:2017-18

For Appellant: Ms. Suman Lunkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., D.R

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 139Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

ITA No.285/Bang/2024 Sohanlalji Ashok Seervi, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B’’BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR CHOUDHRY

Akthar Fathima, Holenarasipura vs. ITO, Ward-1 and Tps, Hassan

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

ITA 262/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian. S, JCIT

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, BENGALURU BENCH BENGALURU BEFORE SHRI N. K. CHOUDHRY, JM & SHRI LAXMI PRASAD

Jay Mataji Co Operative Credit Society Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 30(1)(5), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3723/MUM/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 80P

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘SMC‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Nilesh Shantilal Tank (E-Filing), Borivali (W)

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed and the appeals filed

ITA 3607/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: FixedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ramakrishna Bandi, CIT(DR)

Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM ITA

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Nilesh Shantilal Tank (E-Filing), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed and the appeals filed

ITA 3598/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: FixedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ramakrishna Bandi, CIT(DR)

Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM ITA

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Akshar Shanti Realtors Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed and the appeals filed

ITA 3590/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: FixedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ramakrishna Bandi, CIT(DR)

Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM ITA

M/S. Akshar Shanti Realtors Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 3(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed and the appeals filed

ITA 2781/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: FixedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ramakrishna Bandi, CIT(DR)

Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM ITA

Mr. Nilesh Shantilal Tank, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 3(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed and the appeals filed

ITA 2780/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: FixedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ramakrishna Bandi, CIT(DR)

Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM ITA

Shri Ram Sharnam Sabha Regd., Panipat vs. ITO(E), Ambala

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

ITA 7873/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usa.Yr. : 2015-16 Shri Ram Sharnam Sabha Regd., Ito(E), 588, Model Town, Panipat, Vs. Ambala, Room No. 208, 2Nd Floor, Bc Haryana - 122001 Bazar, Ambala Cantt. (Pan: Aaats4962K) Haryana – 122001 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Shailendra Bajaj, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)

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

Harjit Singh, Ludhiana vs. W III(1), JCIT-III Ldh, Ludhiana

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

ITA 603/CHANDI/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Mar 2024AY 2017-2018

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

For Appellant: Shri Vipan Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ “बी” , च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “B”, CHANDIGARH HEARING

Rameshkumar Gordhanji Gelot, Deesa vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4 Now Ward-1, Palanpur

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 931/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “C” BENCH Before: Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member And Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

Kiranbhai Ranchhodbhai Patel, Kheda vs. The ITO, Ward-3 Now Ward-1, Nadiad

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

ITA 847/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 847/Ahd/2023 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: 2017-2018 Kiranbhai Ranchhodbhai Patel, Income Tax Officer, Door No.67, Vs. Ward-3, Village Bhatera Anano Pol, Now Ward-1 Po Bhatera, Nadiad. Ta. Kathlal Kheda-387630. Pan: Avppp2903H

For Appellant: Shri Parin S Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Katiar, Sr.D.R

Section 142(1)Section 69A

आयकरअपीलीयअधिकरण, अहमदाबादनयायपीी IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘’ SMC’’ BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER And Ms. MADHUMITA

Shree Mallikarjun Trad Invest Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1)(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 551/AHD/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2015-16

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

case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and statutory notices under Section 143(2) of the Act dated 06.04.2016 and notice under Section 142(1) of the Act dated 23.06.2017 along with questionnaire were issued and served. In response to the notices, the Ld. AR of the assessee furnished

Lingamurthi Thota, Medak vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Siddipet

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

ITA 568/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.568/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Lingamurthy Thota Vs. Income Tax Officer Medak Ward-1 Pan:Aefpt7720P Siddipet (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri A. Srinivas, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. Sheetal Sarin, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 13/03/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 15/03/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri A. Srinivas, CAFor Respondent: : Smt. Sheetal Sarin, DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 69ASection 80C

ITA 568 of 2023 Lingamurthi Thota आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad