← 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)

Shri Dharminder Singh, Amritsar vs. Income Tax Oficer, Ward-4 (1), Amritsar

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

ITA 127/ASR/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar23 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Mohit Kumar Nigam, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 148Section 2Section 69

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE

Virender Singh, Delhi vs. Io, Ward 38(4), New Delhi

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

ITA 96/DEL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Us. The Assessee Had Stated In His Affidavit

Section 127Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘H’: NEW DELHI BEFORE, SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI M

Mannu Bhatia, Uae vs. ACIT, Circle 1(1)(2), International Taxation, New Delhi

ITA 819/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharmash. Mannu Bhatia Vs. Acit, 1704, Mesk Tower, International Tax Al Marsa Road, Dubai Circle 1(1)(2) Marina, Dubai, Uae Pan : Afnpb4279A (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142Section 142(1)Section 147Section 196A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI (DELHI BENCH ‘D’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SH. G.S.PANNU, HON’BLE PRESIDENT AND SH

Chandan Bhuillar, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle International Taxation-1(1)(2), New Delhi

Accordingly, the ground no. 1, 2 and 3 are allowed and appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2338/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Aug 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharmash. Chandan Bhuillar Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income 22, Gauri Apartments, Tax Rajesh Pilot Lane, Central Int. Tax-1(1)(2), New Delhi-110057 New Delhi Pan : Aelpb7507E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI (DELHI BENCH ‘D’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SH. G.S.PANNU, HON’BLE PRESIDENT AND SH

M/S Trimurty Industries, Cuncolim, Salcete vs. DCIT, Circle - 1, Margao

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

ITA 397/PAN/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji23 Aug 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury(Through Virtual Hearing) M/S. Trimurty Industry, Vs Dcit, Circle-1, Plot No. M-20, Cuncolim Margao, Goa. Industrial Estate, Cuncolim, Salcette, Goa. Pan: Aadft 1136 F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nagraj Kale, Fca Revenue By : Shri N. Shrikanth, Dr Date Of Hearing : 18/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 23/08/2023 O R D E R Per Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm: This Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Emanates From The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax [Appeals]-1, Panaji, Dated 02.07.2018 For A.Y.2009-10 As Per The Grounds Of Appeal On Record.

For Appellant: Shri Nagraj Kale, FCAFor Respondent: Shri N. Shrikanth, DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 80I

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PANAJI BENCH :: PANAJI BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY

Dinesh Kumar Dixit, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(4), Raipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our observations herein above

ITA 167/RPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur23 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.167/Rpr/2023 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Year: 2017-18 Dinesh Kumar Dixit Vs Income Tax Officer 1, Dixit Bhawan, K.K. Road Ward-3(4) Moudhapara, Raipur-492 001 (Cg) Raipur (C.G.) Pan: Actpd 0023H (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धारितीती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Prafulla Pendse, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr-Dr सुनवाई ाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 22/08/2023 घोषणाणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23/08/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am : This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated 20.03.2023, Arose On The Issues Raised Against The Order Of Assessing Officer Framed U/S 144 Of The Income Tax Act Dated 27.11.2019. The Grounds Of The Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: “1. That The Order Is Bad In Law As Well As On Facts As The Ld. Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred In Confirming The Action Of Ld. Ao In Making Addition Of Rs.96,43,971/- Under The Income Tax Act, 1961Contrary To The Provisions Of Income Tax Act. 2. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Sustaining Addition Of Rs.70,31,100/- In Respect Of Alleged Cash Deposits In Bank Account During The Period Of Demonetization, When The Same Is Same At Variance With The Actual Figures Recorded In The Books Of Accounts.

For Appellant: Shri Prafulla Pendse, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, SR-DR
Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 272A(1)(d)Section 44ASection 68

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, रायपुर न्यायपीठ, रायपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR श्री रविश सूद, न्यायिक सदस्य

Shri Kanjibhai B. Rangani, Rajkot-Gujarat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(1), Rajkot-Gujarat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7/RJT/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot23 Aug 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Written SubmissionFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT (Conducted through E-Court at Ahmedabad) BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT

Mahesh Agarwal HUF, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 6(2), Jaipur

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

ITA 66/JPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl. CIT)
Section 10(38)Section 134ASection 142(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68Section 69C

selected for scrutiny under CASS and accordingly notice u/s 143(2) of the IT Act, 1961 was issued on 18.09.2015. Notice under section 142(1) was issued along with questionnaire on 01.01.2016 and 01.07.2016. In response to these notices, the assessee submitted necessary details and explanations. The AO completed

ITO, Ward-5(2), Jaipur vs. Smt. Shakuntala Agarwal, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the department is allowed

ITA 213/JPR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148

आयकरअपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुरन्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh]U;kf

Marksans Pharma Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT (Appeals), NFAC, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1717/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 35

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. In its return of income, the assessee claimed weighted deduction under section

Vasudendra Lakshminarayana Shetty, Mumbai vs. ITO, National Assessment Centre and Ward-3, Panvel

ITA 1476/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2023AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Athavale, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B. Laxmi Kanth, D.R
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 69A

consequently case was reopened by initiating the proceedings under section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’). Notice under section 142(1) was issued and in response thereto the assessee filed his submissions along with the copy of return of income, computation of income, profit & loss

Pali Textile Common Effluent Treatment Plant, Pali vs. CIT, Exemption, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 67/JODH/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur22 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Its Hearing Before Your Honour.”

Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 143(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR VIRTUAL HEARING BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI

ACIT, Circle (Exemption), Jodhpur vs. Pali Textile Common Effluent Treatment Plant, Pali

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 294/JODH/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur22 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Its Hearing Before Your Honour.”

Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 143(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR VIRTUAL HEARING BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI

Nidhi Agarwal, Ghaziabad vs. PCIT, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed in limine

ITA 198/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Us Stating That The Father Of Chartered Accountant

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’: NEW DELHI BEFORE, SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI

India International Centre, Central Delhi vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2940/DEL/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Aug 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2018-19 India International Centre, Vs Cit(E), 40, Max Mueller Marg, New Delhi. Lodhi Estate, New Delhi – 110 003. Pan: Aaati0660C

For Appellant: Shri Krishna Mohan Prasad, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mohd. Gayasuddin Ansari, CIT,DR
Section 10Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 263

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : C : DELHI BEFORE SHRI C.M. GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH

Shri Santosh Mandloi, Indore vs. The ITO 5 (4), Indore

ITA 38/IND/2023[22012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Aug 2023

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Santosh Mandloi, Ito, बनाम/ 750, Kanadia Road, 5(4), Indore Indore. Vs. (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Csxps0923D Assessee By Shri Manish Mittal, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22.08.2023

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148

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

Sakku Devi, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-7(2), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 89/JPR/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Kumar Sharma (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT) a
Section 271(1)(b)

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

Career Point Limited, Kota, Rajasthan vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Udaipur, Rajasthan

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 242/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, CA &For Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik (CIT)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

which the AO may require and deemed fit and ld. PCIT cannot be allowed to interfere by imposing his opinion upon the AO. Section 142(1) unequivocally provides that for the purposes of making an assessment under this Act, the AO may serve a notice on any person ... under section 143(2) of the IT Act, 1961 dated 23.09.2019, furnished complete details of investment on 12.10.2019. Again, through notices issued under section 142(1) dated 18.02.2020 and 16.12.2020, the AO asked the assessee to provide details of investment made to earn exempt income and also give details

Shri Digamber Jain Atikshaya Keshtra, Padampua vs. ITO Exemption Ward 1, Kailash Heights

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 424/JPR/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev sogani (C.A)&For Respondent: Ms. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)
Section 11(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 24Section 253(3)

cognizance is taken and assessment is completed under section 144 of the I.T. Act, 1961. Notices under section 142(1) of the IT. Act, 1961 alongwith query letter were issued. In response thereto, Shri Narendra Kumar Goswami, Advocate and Authorized Representative of the society attended the proceeding from time

M/S. Maa Tarani Logistics Ltd, Joda vs. ACIT Cir.-1(1), Cuttack

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 140/CTK/2023[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack21 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & And Rajesh Kumarassessment Year : 2012-13 M/S Maa Tarani Logistics M/S Maa Tarani Logistics Vs. Acit, Circle Acit, Circle-1(1), Ltd., Ltd., Unchabali, Unchabali, Po: Po: Cuttack Bamabri, Bamabri, Via Via- Joda, Keonjhar Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aaecm 7549 R (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By Assessee By : S/Shri Soumitra Choudhury & Jaydeep Soumitra Choudhury & Jaydeep Chakraborty, Advocates Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Pr. Cit (Osd) Pr. Cit (Osd) Date Of Hearing : 21/08 8/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/0 /08/2023 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A), , Nfac, Nfac, Delhi, Dated 27.3.2023 In Appeal No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1051397448(1) For The Assessment Year For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. S/Shri Shri Soumitra Choudhury & Jaydeep Chakraborty, Advocates Soumitra Choudhury & Jaydeep Chakraborty, Advocates Appeared For The Assessee & Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld. Pr.Cit (Osd) Appeared For The Assessee & Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld. Pr.Cit (Osd) Appeared For The Assessee & Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld. Pr.Cit (Osd) Appeared For The Reve Appeared For The Revenue.

For Appellant: S/Shri Soumitra Choudhury & JaydeepFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, Pr. CIT (OSD)
Section 127Section 127(2)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 1aSection 234Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH