← 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)

Arush Technology, Vijayapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Bijapur

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

ITA 107/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep ChalapathyFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale
Section 115BSection 139Section 142(1)Section 250Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD

Bhalchandra Pandurang Dalvi, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 28(1)(2), New Mumbai

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

ITA 3865/MUM/2023[AY 2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2024

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250(1)Section 69A

2549/MUM/2023 (A.Y: 2009-10) Bhalchandra P. Dalvi 2. The Assessing officer has not issued and served properly notice u/s. 148 and or section 142(1) of IT ACT 1961. No show cause notice for the proposed addition was made. The Learned CIT (A) 26 also erred in not serving

Fayz E Husayni Trust, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nafc) Delhi, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3048/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 11(6)Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 270ASection 274

Trust expenditure i.e., addition to fixed assets in the computation of income as it amounts to double deduction. By issue of notice under section 142(1) of the Act dated 28.11.2019, the assessee was asked to explain why the claim of depreciation should not be disallowed. In response assessee submitted

Bhalchandra P. Dalvi, Ghahtkopar, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 27 (1) (2), Vashi, Navi Mumbai

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

ITA 2549/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250(1)Section 69A

2549/MUM/2023 (A.Y: 2009-10) Bhalchandra P. Dalvi 2. The Assessing officer has not issued and served properly notice u/s. 148 and or section 142(1) of IT ACT 1961. No show cause notice for the proposed addition was made. The Learned CIT (A) 26 also erred in not serving

Island Star Mall Developes Private Limited, Mumbai Suburban vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 6(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2251/MUM/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI BR BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL

Island Star Mall Developes Private Limited, Mumbai Suburban vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 6(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 2250/MUM/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI BR BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL

Island Star Mall Developes Private Limited, Mumbai Suburban vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 6(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2249/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI BR BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL

Island Star Mall Developes Private Limited, Mumbai Suburban vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 6(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 2248/MUM/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2024AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI BR BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL

Island Star Mall Developes Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 6(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2247/MUM/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI BR BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL

Island Star Mall Developes Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 6(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2246/MUM/2023[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI BR BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL

ITO-41(3)(3), Mumbai vs. Ramanlal Agarwal (HUF), Mumbai

ITA 1492/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri.P.D.Chougule.Sr.DR
Section 133(6)Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI BR BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL

Metal Industries, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward 6(3), Hyderabad

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

ITA 605/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2017-18 Metal Industries, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, B-44, Industrial Estate, Ward – 6(3), Sanathnagar, Hyderabad. Hyderabad – 500018. Telangana. Pan : Aawfm8494Q. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Hari Agarwal, C.A. Revenue By: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, Sr.Ar Date Of Hearing: 25/01/2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 20/02/2024

For Appellant: Shri Hari Agarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, Sr.AR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 44ASection 68

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “A”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI LALIET KUMAR

Nunna Primary Agricultural Co-Op Credit Society Limited, Vijayawada vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-3(5), Vijayawada

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

ITA 259/VIZ/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam20 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.259/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Nunna Primary Agricultural Co-Op Vs. Income Tax Officer Credit Society Ltd. Ward-3(5) D.No.6-56, Nunna Village Vijayawada Vijayawada Rural Krishna District [Pan : Aaban2838D] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri I Kama Sastry, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Aparna Villuri, DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 249(4)(b)Section 80A(5)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

आयकरअपीलीयअधिकरण, धिशाखापटणम “SMC” पीठ, धिशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM “SMC” BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM श्री दुव्वूरु आर एल रेड्डी

Sivalingam Natarajan, Ponamaravathi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 5, Puducherry

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

ITA 1450/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh

For Appellant: Ms. N.V. Lakshmi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan, Addl CIT
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, बी’ "यायपीठ,चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘ B ’ (SMC) BENCH : CHENNAI "ी महावीर

Ram Dhan Yadav, Chomu Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, ITO 7(3), Jaipur

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

ITA 369/JPR/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Feb 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Soni (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh (Addl.CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69B

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

Ram Dhan Yadav, Chomu Jaipur vs. ITO, WD 7(3), Jaipur

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

ITA 366/JPR/2023[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Feb 2024AY 2007-2008

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Soni (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh (Addl.CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69B

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

Rampur Mahila Upbhokta Sehkari Samiti Ltd., Rampur vs. Income Tax Officer 1(3), Rampur

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only

ITA 3881/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 44ASection 69A

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

Intekhab Husain, Moradabad vs. Income Tax Officer 2(1), Moradabad - New

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only

ITA 3877/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 3Section 69A

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

M/S. Shanker Fuels Pvt., Kolkata vs. ACIT, C.C-3(1), Kolkata.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1317/KOL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 1317/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Shanker Fuels Pvt. Ltd. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 301, Manglam Vs Central Circle -3(1), Kolkata 24, Hemant Basu Sarani Kolkata - 700001 [Pan: Aaecs1106J] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Kiran Chatrapoty, Jcit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 31/01/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 19/02/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Above Captioned Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 15/09/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. There Is A Minor Delay In Filing Of This Appeal. In The Larger Interest Of Justice, The Same Is Hereby Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted For Adjudication On Merits. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Despite Issuance Of Notice Nor Is Any Application For Adjournment Placed Before Us. We, Therefore, Deem It Proper To Adjudicate The Appeal & Decide It On Merits Ex-Parte, Qua The Assessee, After Hearing The Ld. D/R. 3. We Have Heard The Ld. D/R & Perused The Material Placed Before Us. The Sole Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Finding Of The 2

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Kiran Chatrapoty, JCIT, Sr. D/R
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(b)

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

Aryavrat Vintrade Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-292), Kolkata

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

ITA 1261/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 1261/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Aryavrat Vintrade Pvt. Ltd.,......................Appellant 14, Ganesh Chandra Avenue, 2Nd Floor, Room No. 17, Kolkata-700013 [Pan: Aahca4737A] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,.................................Respondent Ward-2(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 24, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 19, 2024

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 68Section 69

selected for scrutiny assessment and a notice under section 143(2) was issued on 16.08.2018. The ld. Assessing Officer thereafter issued notices under section 142(1) on different dates. The ld. Assessing Officer observed that on perusal of accounts, it revealed that there is a substantiate increase of Rs.47