“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 Ravi Shankar, Dholpura vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4, Bharatpur

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

ITA 898/JPR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dismissing Appeal In Default. The Order Is Per-Se Illegal & Bad In Law.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Chanchal Meena (Addl.CIT)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 44A

served on the 3 Shri Ravi Shankar, Bharatpur. assessee. Thereafter, the case was fixed for hearing on various dates by issuing notice under section 142(1) of the IT Act, 1961 as under :- S.No. Date of notice issued Date of hearing 1 ... assessee was asked to furnish necessary details/information as per notice under section 142(1) along with query letter dated 04.05.2016. In compliance, the assessee produced copy of ITR, computation of total income along with copy of audit report and form No. 26AS but not produced any evidence regarding commission paid

Axia Infoserve LLP, Mumbai vs. National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi

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

ITA 3142/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleaxia Infoserve Llp V. Additional/Joint/Dy/Acit 16Th Floor, Tower 2A National E-Assessment Centre One Indiabulls Centre Delhi Senapati Bapat Road, Elphinstone Road Mumbai- 400013 Pan: Abifa7158G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Nitesh Joshi Department Represented By : Shri Minal Kamble

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 56(2)(x)

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

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-5(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Saket Infra Projects Private Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 2783/MUM/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 May 2023AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalethe Dcit, Vs. M/S. Saket Infra Central Circle 5(1), Projects Pvt Ltd., Room No. 1928, L3-308,The Summit 19Th Floor, Airindiabldg, Bay, Service Road, We Nariman Point, Highway, Vile Parle (E) Mumbai-400021. Mumbai –400057. Pan/Gir No. : Aakcs4532L Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri.Dr. Kishor Dhule Cit-Dr & Smt. Neeraja Sharma.Dr Respondent By : Shri. Jp Bairagra, Shri Ashiskumar Bairagra & Shri Akhilesh Pevekar. Ar Date Of Hearing 06.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 02.05.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-53, Mumbai Passed U/S 250 Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri.Dr. Kishor Dhule CIT-DR &For Respondent: Shri. JP Bairagra

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B R BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE

Vivek Agnihotri, Mumbai vs. ITO 16 (1)(5), Mumbai

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

ITA 4493/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shir Pavan Kumar Gadalevivek Agnihotri Vs. Ito – 16(1)(5), 1505/1506, Amarnath Aayakar Bhavan, Tower, Yari Road, M.K.Road, Versova, Andheri (W) Mumbai – 400020. Mumbai – 400061. Pan/Gir No. : Adypa6052B Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ms.Kinjal Bhuta.Ar Respondent By : Mr. Ankush Kapoor.Dr Date Of Hearing 28.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 01.05.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Prcommissioner Of Income Tax (Pr.Cit)-16, Mumbai Passed U/S 263 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Ms.Kinjal Bhuta.ARFor Respondent: Mr. Ankush Kapoor.DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 50C

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

Shri Girishkumar Vachhraj Dholakia, Junagadh vs. The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Rajkot-Gujarat

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee(s) are dismissed

ITA 15/RJT/2021[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot02 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 14/Rjt/2021 Assessment Year : 2015-2016 Shri Jugalkishore Natwarlal Pr. Commissioner Of Dholakia, Vs Income-Tax, C/O. Chokshi Vachhraj Makanji & Pcit-1, Rajkot Co., Shishumangal Road, Gandhigram, Junagadh-362001 Pan : Abqpd 2710 D आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 15/Rjt/2021 Assessment Year : 2015-2016 Shri Girishkumar Vachhraj Pr. Commissioner Of Dholakia, Vs Income-Tax, C/O. Chokshi Vachhraj Makanji & Pcit-1, Rajkot Co., Shishumangal Road, Gandhigram, Junagadh-362001 Pan : Abupd 6245 P अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Samir Jani, Ar Revenue By : Shri Vijay Kumar Jaiswal, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01/05/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02/05/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy:-

For Appellant: Shri Samir Jani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Jaiswal, CIT-DR

Section 10Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 263Section 36(1)(iii)

limited scrutiny under CASS and a notice under Section 143(2) dated 30.08.2016 was served upon the assessee followed by a notice under Section 142(1) of the Act along with questionnaire. In compliance whereof, the representative of the assessee appeared and filed written submissions on behalf of the assessee ... also gone through the records in respect of the assessment proceedings conducted by the learned Assessing Officer wherein we find that queries under Section 142(1) dated 13.11.2017 were made to the assessee by the DCIT, Junagadh Circle, wherein details in regard to working of disallowance under Section

Shri Jugalkishore Natwarlal Dholakia, Junagadh vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Rajkot

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee(s) are dismissed

ITA 14/RJT/2021[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot02 May 2023AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Samir Jani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Jaiswal, CIT-DR

Section 10Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 263Section 36(1)(iii)

Gani Mohammad Popat, Surat vs. ITO, Ward-3, Vapi

In the result, grounds No

ITA 514/SRT/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat02 May 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Virtual Hearing) Popat Yasin Abdulganibhai, I.T.O., Son & L/H Of Late Gani Mohammad Ward-3, Vs. Popat, Vapi. Bombay Market, Zanda Chowk, Near S.T. Bus Depot, Vapi. Pan No. Akvpp 0747 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 147Section 234ASection 234BSection 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)

believe that income of assessee has escaped assessment. However, in the present case, the Assessing Officer before reopening, issued various notices under Section 142(1) to furnish the complete details and explanation with justification at source of cash deposit. Moreover, no such objection was raised either before the Assessing Officer

Three C Universal Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 6, New Delhi

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee for AYs 2010-11,

ITA 7582/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Chaudhary, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 234A

respectively. For the AY 2014-15, notice under section 142(1) of the Act was issued on 23.12.2014. The assessee submitted a copy of return filed on 30.11.2014 declaring income of Rs. 39,22,37,340/-. 5. During assessment proceedings, the Ld. Assessing Officer (“AO”) found that the assessee made

Three C Universal Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 6, New Delhi

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee for AYs 2010-11,

ITA 7581/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Chaudhary, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 234A

Three C Universal Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 6, New Delhi

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee for AYs 2010-11,

ITA 7580/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Chaudhary, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 234A

Three C Universal Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 6, New Delhi

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee for AYs 2010-11,

ITA 7579/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Chaudhary, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 234A

Bhanwari Devi, Alwar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(2), Alwar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 74/JPR/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: The Time Of Hearing Of Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Agarwal( CA)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(b)

Ward 7(4) Jaipur ITA No. 311/JP/2018 order dt. 05/07/2018 held that As regards the penalty levied for non compliance of notice under section 142(1), we find that the assessee was not served with any of the notices issued by the AO due to the change of address ... filed any return of income, therefore, the AO was not having the present address of the assessee. Hence when the notice issued under section 142(1) was not served upon the assessee, and the AO has not conducted further enquiry regarding the current address of the assessee then

Babulal Hajarimal Jain, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 19(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 274/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Shashank Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Chetan M. Kacha, D.R

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

assessee opted to treat the return already filed as response to the notice under section 148 of the Act. Notices under section 142(1) and 143(2) along with questionnaires were issued. As per information received from DGIT (Inv.), 3 M/s. Babulal Hajarimalji Jain Mumbai the assessee has accepted entries

Sai Prerna Co-Op. Credit Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 17(3) (2), Mumbai

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

ITA 216/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sai Prerana Co-Op Society Ltd., Ito-7(3)(2), 317, Puran Aasha Bldg. Gr. Fl. Room No. 126, 1St Floor, Narashi Natha Street, Katha Vs. Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C- Bazar Musjid Bunder (W), 43 Block, Bandra Kurla Mumbai-400 009. Complex, Bandra (East) Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadts 5638 M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Ruby Srivastava & Mr. Bharat Kumar, Ca Revenue By : Mr. Milind S. Chavan, Dr Date Of Hearing : 27/04/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 28/04/2023 Order

For Appellant: Ms. Ruby Srivastava &For Respondent: Mr. Milind S. Chavan, DR

Section 139(1)Section 14Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80P

served with the notice under Section Petitioner had been served with the notice under Section Petitioner had been served with the notice under Section 142(1) of the Act dated 27th September, 2016 asking the 142(1) of the Act dated 27th September, 2016 asking the 142(1 ... into specifcally as can be seen return of income but also gone into specifcally as can be seen from the notice issued under Section 142(1) of the Act where from the notice issued under Section 142(1) of the Act where from the notice issued under Section 142(1

Shri Bashir Ahmad Sofi, Nowhatta vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Srinagar

In the result, the appeal of the assesse in I

ITA 37/ASR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar28 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

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

Section 148Section 250Section 7(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR (VIRTUAL COURT) BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH

Bashir Ahmad Sofi, Srinagar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Srinagar

In the result, the appeal of the assesse in I

ITA 208/ASR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar28 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

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

Section 148Section 250Section 7(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR (VIRTUAL COURT) BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH

DCIT, CC-8, New Delhi vs. Bjn Holdings Ltd. (Dissolved Company Through Its Successor Bjn Holding (I) Ltd.), Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 46/DEL/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Apr 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Pradeep Dinodia, CAFor Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143CSection 153CSection 273A

Section 143 (2) was issued on 26 September 2013 to the amalgamating company, SPIL, which was followed by a notice to it under Section 142(1); (vi) Sixthly, prior to the date on which the jurisdictional notice under Section 143 (2) was issued, the scheme of amalgamation had been approved ... died in the meantime. His son who was one of the legal representatives filed returns upon which the assessing officer issued notices under Section 142 (1) and Section 143 (2). These were complied with and no objections were raised to the assessment proceedings. The assessment order mentioned the names