← 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)

DCIT, Central Circle-32, New Delhi vs. Ark Infosolution Pvt Ltd, Delhi

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2423/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Dec 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Anubhav Sharma

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

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “H”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI

Ashok Kumar Gupta, Faridabad vs. Pr. CIT, Faridabad

In the result, the grounds raised are sustained and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 369/DEL/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Dec 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2010-11 Ashok Kumar Gupta, Vs Pr. Cit, 200, Sec.-7A, Faridabad. Faridabad, Haryana. 121 001 Pan: Aalpg5795M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rakesh Jain, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Zafarul Haque Tanweer, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.12.2023 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Is Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 09.03.2020 Of The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Faridabad (Hereinafter Referred As Ld. Pcit) Arising Out Of The Order Dated 28.11.2017 Passed U/S. 147/148 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’) By The Ito, Ward 1(1), Faridabad (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao). 2. At The Outset, It Was Pointed Out By Ld. Ar That An Application For Condonation Of Delay Of 324 Days Has Been Filed Supported With An Affidavit. On Hearing Upon The Same, It Comes Up That The Limitation For Filing The Appeal Was Upto 11.05.2020 & Due To Covid-19 Restrictions, In View Of The Directions Of The Hon’Ble Supreme Court In Suo Moto Writ Petition (Civil) No.03/2020, The Period Between 15.03.2020 & 28.02.2022 Has To Be Excluded For The Purpose Of Calculation Of Limitation & In The Light Of The Aforesaid, The Delay Is Condoned.

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Zafarul Haque Tanweer, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 263(1)

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

Shri Lokendra Panwar, Indore vs. The PCIT (1), Indore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 185/IND/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore14 Dec 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Lokendra Panwar Pcit (1) 8 B Chandra Nagar, A.B. Indore Vs. Road, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Achpp2073R Assessee By Shri S.S. Solanki, Ar Revenue By Ms. Simran Bhullar Cit- Dr Date Of Hearing 31.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 14.12.2023

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 57(1)

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

Vitrag Prints, Surat vs. NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 338/SRT/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat14 Dec 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.338/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Physical Hearing) Vitrag Prints, Vs. The Acit (Osd), K-2619 To 2622, Millenium Ward -1(2)(5), Textile Market Ring Road, Surat. Surat - 395002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aalfv5612L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Jaykishan Goel, Ca Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Respondent By 22/09/2023 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 14/12/2023

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 40A(2)(b)

Rs.24,32,059/-out of expenses is agitated in this appeal. 4.i. It is seen that the AO issued notice under section 142(1) calling for details and information. The AO rejected the books of accounts and resorted to disallow a portion of expenses. The AO observed

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-6(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Tapir Construction Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 2145/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Dec 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bledcit – Central Circle – 6(4) V. M/S. Tapir Constructions Limited Room No. 1925, 19Th Floor M-62 & 63, 1St Floor Air India Building Connaught Place Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400021 New Delhi – 110001, New Delhi Pan: Aaect9858L (Appellant) (Respondent)

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

proper and it should have been capitalized. When the show cause Page No. 2 M/s. Tapir Constructions Limited notice was issued under section 142(1) of the Act directing the assessee to explain the above claim of expenditure and in reply vide letter dated 07.01.2021 and 26.02.2021 assessee has made

Rajan Ahuja, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 45(2), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2542/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2017-18] Rajan Ahuja, Vs Ito, A-2/79, Ground Floor, Ward-45(2), Rajouri Garden, Delhi-110027. Delhi. Pan-Bxxpa0933M Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Akarsh Garg, Advocate Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 07.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 13.12.2023

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 272Section 272A(1)(d)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “SMC” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER [Assessment Year : 2017

Bhagwati Prasad Jaiswal, Indore vs. The ITO-1 (2), Indore

In the result, the appeal of assesse is allowed

ITA 236/IND/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore13 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Raobhagwati Prasad Jaiswal Ito 1(2) 538, Opp. Bombay Hospital Sai Ujjain Vs. Krapa Colony Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Abjpj 8202 B Assessee By Ms. Ruchira Nerker, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 04.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 13.12.2023

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148

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

Directi Internet Solutions Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 5(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 3012/MUM/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledirecti Internet Vs. Acit-5(1)(2), Solutions Pvt Ltd, Aayakar Bhavan, Acme-I Tech Park, Old M.K.Road, Nagardas Road, Churchgate, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400069. Pan/Gir No. : Aaccg4058M Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Firoze B.Andhyarujina.Sr. Adv &For Respondent: Shri.S.G.Menon.Sr.DR
Section 10A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Directi Internet Vs. ACIT

Sanjay Basudeo Agarwal, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 25(1)(1), Bandra Kurla Complex

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

ITA 2398/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalesanjay Basudeo Agarwal, Vs Ito, Ward - 25(1)(1), 1601, Kanchan Ganga, Kautilya Bhawan, J.P Road, Manishnagar, G- Block,Bkc, Andheri (W), Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400053. Mumbai-400051. Pan/Gir No. : Aabpa1748E Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya.ARFor Respondent: Shri.UjjawalkumarChavhanSr.DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68Section 69

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Sanjay Basudeo Agarwal, Vs

Anisha Gulab Adnani, Mumbai vs. ITO (Int. Tax) 1(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, Revised Ground raised by the assessee are allowed and order of authorities below are set-aside with a direction to AO to delete the addition made and treat the whole amount received ...

ITA 2791/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalms. Anisha Gulab Adnani 449, Ambit House, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai- 400013, Pan: Almpa7111K ...... Appellant Vs. Ito (Intl. Tax) – 1 (1)(1), R. No. 19, B Wing, 3Rd Floor, Mittal Court, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021 ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Madhav Khandel /Vivek KFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant, Ld. DR
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 80C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “I”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL

Munesh Devi, Greater Noida vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Noida

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 347/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A), the Ld. CIT(A) passed the combined order for A.Y.2010-11, 2011-12, 2014-15 and 2016-17 and a separate order for AY 2015-16 on 12.07.2018 by dismissing the appeals filed by the assessee. The Assessee preferred the above appeals.

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 68

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

Munesh Devi, Greater Noida vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Noida

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 346/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A), the Ld. CIT(A) passed the combined order for A.Y.2010-11, 2011-12, 2014-15 and 2016-17 and a separate order for AY 2015-16 on 12.07.2018 by dismissing the appeals filed by the assessee. The Assessee preferred the above appeals.

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 68

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

Munesh Devi, Greater Noida vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Noida

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 345/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A), the Ld. CIT(A) passed the combined order for A.Y.2010-11, 2011-12, 2014-15 and 2016-17 and a separate order for AY 2015-16 on 12.07.2018 by dismissing the appeals filed by the assessee. The Assessee preferred the above appeals.

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 68

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

Munesh Devi, Greater Noida vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Noida

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 344/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A), the Ld. CIT(A) passed the combined order for A.Y.2010-11, 2011-12, 2014-15 and 2016-17 and a separate order for AY 2015-16 on 12.07.2018 by dismissing the appeals filed by the assessee. The Assessee preferred the above appeals.

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 68

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

Ayursidhha Inc, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward- 1(2), Gurgaon

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

ITA 4210/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Ayursidhha Inc., Vs Ito, V-17/18, Dlf Phase-Iii, Ward 1(12), Gurgaon, Haryana. Gurgaon. Pan-Aamfa9665K Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Tarun Tulsani, Ca Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 06.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 12.12.2023

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 801CSection 80I

granting of an opportunity of being heard to the Appellant. 5. Appellant has neither received any intimation nor notices under section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961dt.19th and 20th March- 2015 which have mentioned by AO in his order. Authorized representative of assessee rushed to attend the hearing

Madan Lal Jat, Renwal vs. ITO Ward 7(1) Jaipur, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 631/JPR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Dec 2023AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Sharwan Kumar Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CITa
Section 142Section 142(1)Section 144Section 271Section 271(1)(b)

आयकरअपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुरन्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC ” JAIPUR MkWa- ,l-lhrky{eh] U;kf

Kanchan India Limited, Bhilwara vs. DCIT Central Circle Ajmer, Jaipur Road Ajmer

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 522/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Dec 2023AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri C.M. Agarwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik (CIT) a
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

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

Income Tax Officer Ward 1(1) Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs. Rajsway Direct Trading Private Limited, Bilaspur

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 257/RPR/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur11 Dec 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 257/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21 The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Bilaspur .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Rajsway Direct Trading Private Limited, 1154, Ward No.12, Minimata Nagar, Talapara, Bilaspur (C.G.)-495 001 Pan : Aahcr9787K

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Ila M. Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 69C

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ रायपुर म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI RAVISH

Himanshu Botadeara HUF, Indore vs. The ITO 4(3), Indore

In the result, these two appeals filed by the assesse are

ITA 156/IND/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore11 Dec 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 44ASection 68

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

Himanshu Botadeara HUF, Indore vs. The ITO 4(3), Indore

In the result, these two appeals filed by the assesse are

ITA 155/IND/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore11 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 44ASection 68

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