← 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)

Lata Kaman, Gulbarga vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Kalaburgi

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

ITA 1103/BANG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Chandra Poojari & Shri Narendra Kumar Chodhryassessment Year : 2018-19 Smt. Lata Kaman, Vs. Ito, E2803, Bapunagar Harijanwada, Ward – 1 & Tps, Gulbarga – 585 102, Kalaburgi, Karnataka. Karnataka. Pan : Ahnpl 2584 L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Sreehari Kutsa, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate – Standing Counsel For Revnue. Date Of Hearing : 12.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.02.2024

For Appellant: Shri. Sreehari Kutsa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate – Standing Counsel for Revnue
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 154Section 250Section 68Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR CHODHRY, JUDICIAL

Meyer Organics Private Limited, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3307/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Mihir C. Naniwadekar a/wFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

return filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices under section 143(2) as well as section 142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee. During the assessment proceedings, from the perusal of the profit and loss account, it was observed that

Shri Umang H. Thakkar, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT., Ward-7(2), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 796/AHD/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Feb 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member), Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Ahilendra Pratap Yadaw, CIT-D.R
Section 145Section 40Section 69CSection 801B(10)Section 80ASection 80I

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “A” BENCH Before: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member And Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member

The DCIT, Circle-11, Ahmedabad vs. Shri Umang Hiralal Thakkar, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 760/AHD/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Feb 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member), Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Ahilendra Pratap Yadaw, CIT-D.R
Section 145Section 40Section 69CSection 801B(10)Section 80ASection 80I

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “A” BENCH Before: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member And Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member

Eximcorp India Private Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir.-5(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2582/KOL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण कोलकाता 'बी' पीठ, कोलकाता में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘B’ BENCH, KOLKATA श्री राजपाल

Sterling Farm Research and Services Private Limited, Ernakulam vs. The PCIT, Kochi-1, Kochi

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 661/COCH/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Feb 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dassterling Farm Research & Services Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax-1 Pvt. Ltd. Kochi 29/2469 C2, Sterling House Vs. Pettah, Poonithura S.O. Ernakulam 682038 [Pan:Aadcs3199J] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Raja Kannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 50Section 50B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountant Member and Shri Manomohan Das, Judicial

Sh. Madan Lal Gupta, Keshav Nagar, Alwar vs. Addl. CIT, Central Range, Jaipur

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 580/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh (Addl. CIT) a
Section 115BSection 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271D

income were called for u/s 142(1) of the Act by means of a questionnaire. Further, queries were raised vide notices under section 142(1) of the Act from time to time. In response to the above referred notice(s), the assessee filed a written submission through

Sh. Madan Lal Gupta, Keshav Nagar, Alwar vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Alwar

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 579/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh (Addl. CIT) a
Section 115BSection 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271D

income were called for u/s 142(1) of the Act by means of a questionnaire. Further, queries were raised vide notices under section 142(1) of the Act from time to time. In response to the above referred notice(s), the assessee filed a written submission through

M/S. Rdc Ventures, Mumbai vs. PCIT-27, Mumbai

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

ITA 1915/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhm/S Rdc Ventures Vs. Principal Commissioner Office No.-110 Of Income Tax-27 Ridhhisidhhi Premises Room No. 401, 4 Th Floor, Society, Near Sahakar Tower No. 6, Vashi Talkies Tilak Nagar, Railway Station, Chembur (West) Mumbai- Commercial Complex, 400089 Vashi, Navi Mumbai -400703 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aakfr0914Q Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Dhran Gandhi Respondent By : Sanyogita Nagpal Date Of Hearing 29.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 09.02.2024

For Appellant: Dhran GandhiFor Respondent: Sanyogita Nagpal
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

P a g e | 1 M/s RDC Ventures Vs. Pr.CIT-27 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI

Rohit Kumar Kothari, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-5(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 2/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Acocuntant Member & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Respondent: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, Sr. AR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 270A

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

Panel Commerce Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-4(1), Kolkata.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1116/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH ‘B’, KOLKATA [Before Dr. Manish Borad, Accountant Member & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial

ITO, Ward-5(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Express Tradelink Pvt. Ltd, Kolkata

ITA 43/KOL/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Feb 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 43/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer, Ward -5(1), M/S. Express Tradelink Pvt. Ltd. Kolkata Vs 64, Bentinck Street 3Rd Floor Kolkata - 700001 [Pan: Aacce0887C] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate & Shri Asim Panda, A/R Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28/11/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/02/2024 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 Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Kolkata – 7, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 23/09/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of 36 Days In Filing The Present Appeal By The Revenue. Petition For Condonation Of Delay Is Placed On Record Explaining The Reasons. On Perusing The Same, We Are Convinced That The Revenue Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause From Filing This Appeal In Time. Accordingly, We Condone The Delay & Proceed To Admit The Appeal For Hearing. 3. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate and ShriFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT, D/R
Section 250Section 68

| आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "यायपीठ, कोलकाता | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, HON’BLE

Al A S Real Estate Ans Developers P Ltd, Ratlam vs. The ITO -1, Ratlam

ITA 181/IND/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Indore08 Feb 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2018-19 Al A S Real Estate & Pr. Commissioner Of Developers Private Ltd., Income-Tax-1, बनाम/ 82, Nolaipura, Indore Vs. Ratlam (Appellant/Assessee) (Respondent/Revenue) Pan: Aakca 0026 H Assessee By Shri Rajesh Mehta, Ca & Ar Revenue By Ms. Simran Bhullar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 10.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 08.02.2024

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, इंदौर "ायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO

Lovely Promoters Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Ajmer

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

ITA 770/JPR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: him regarding non mentioning of Document Identification Number (DIN) in the body of the order u/s. 127 of the Act dated 08-09-2021 and various other technical pleas raised in grounds of appeal regarding validity of notice u/s. 148 of the Act, thereby appellate order passed by the CIT(A) is non-speaking order and deserves to be quashed. 4. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the AO erred in issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act as it was a search related case u/s. 132 r/w

For Appellant: Shri Mayank Taparia (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.CIT) a
Section 127Section 127(1)Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 153C

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

Huhtavefa B.V, Netherlands vs. ACIT, Circle Int. Taxation 2(1)(1), New Delhi

In the result, the Assessee’s Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3118/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Feb 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya

For Appellant: Shri Malay Kalavadia, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vijay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 270A

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

Cholan Paper and Board Private Limited, Chennai vs. PCIT-1 Chennai, Chennai

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

ITA 679/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.679/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Cholan Paper & Board Private Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Limited,No. 1, Bukkathurai, Nh 45, Income Tax, Chennai-1, Bukkuathurai, Kancheepuram District, Chennai. Tamil Nadu 603 308. [Pan:Aaacc1363M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Quadir Hoseyn, Advocate & Dr.L. Natarajan, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 30.01.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 07.02.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai-1, Chennai, Dated 28.03.2023 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2018-19 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri N. Quadir Hoseyn, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(7)

assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. counsel for the assessee has submitted that against the notice under section 142(1) of the Act, all the questions raised by the Assessing Officer mere with regard to loans only under “Limited Scrutiny” were replied. It was further ... scrutiny for verification of (i) duty drawback, (ii) unsecured loans & (iii) disallowance u/s. 40A(7) (Gratuity Provision). The Assessing Officer issued notice under section 142(1) of the Act to the assessee calling for various details. The assessee filed its reply on 11.03.2020. The Assessing Officer, vide his notice under

Udayan Grover, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC), Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2880/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleudayan Grover V. National Faceless Appeal Centre Panch Mahal Delhi Panch Sristhi Complex {Acit – 26(3), Bkc, Mumbai} Powai, Mumbai - 400072 Pan: Aclpg0572G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vimal Punmiya Department Represented By : Ms. Kavitha Kaushik

Section 10(38)Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 57Section 68

providers (for the sake of brevity the same is not reproduced below). Subsequently, Assessing Officer Page No. 3 Udayan Grover issued notice under section 142(1) of the Act requiring assessee to explain with evidences why the Long Term Capital Gain should not be treated as non-genuine and sale

ACIT - 2(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Jasani Realty Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 7461/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER And SHRI

DCIT Circle-43(1), New Delhi vs. Mohan Mittal, New Delhi

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 24/DEL/2021[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Delhi07 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit Vs. Mohan Mittal Central Circle -43(1) 138, Deepali Enclave, New Delhi Pitampura, New Delhi Pan No.Apfpm0496Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Dr. Maninder Kaur Biswas, Sr. Dr Respondent By Sh. Ruchesh Sinha, Advocate Sh. Arun Jain, Ca Date Of Hearing: 05/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 07/02/2024 Order Per N. K. Billaiya, Am:

Section 10

application of mind before drawing any adverse inference. Thus, the approach of the Assessing authority in making the addition is also contrary to section 142(1) of the Act which provides that for the purpose of obtaining full information in respect of income or loss of any person

Ultimate Creations, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-4, 110055

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1590/DEL/2021[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 133ASection 142(1)Section 69

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘H’, NEW DELHI Before Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member Sh