← 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)

Kalpataru Projects International Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-3(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals by the assessee for the assessment years

ITA 5965/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 37(1)

6112/Mum/2025 5 (A.Ys. 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2017-18) during the search action, the AO issued notice under section 142(1) of the Act to the assessee to produce supporting documentary evidence, such as ledger accounts, copies of agreements, invoices, transport challans, delivery challans, etc., in respect ... part details like invoices, ledgers, purchase orders and payment details in respect of transactions done with entities mentioned in the notice issued under section 142(1) of the Act. Since the assessee could not furnish adequate supporting documents in respect of purchases from the following parties, the AO issued

Kalpataru Projects International Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-3(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals by the assessee for the assessment years

ITA 5964/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 37(1)

6112/Mum/2025 5 (A.Ys. 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2017-18) during the search action, the AO issued notice under section 142(1) of the Act to the assessee to produce supporting documentary evidence, such as ledger accounts, copies of agreements, invoices, transport challans, delivery challans, etc., in respect ... part details like invoices, ledgers, purchase orders and payment details in respect of transactions done with entities mentioned in the notice issued under section 142(1) of the Act. Since the assessee could not furnish adequate supporting documents in respect of purchases from the following parties, the AO issued

Kalpataru Projects International Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-3(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals by the assessee for the assessment years

ITA 5963/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 37(1)

6112/Mum/2025 5 (A.Ys. 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2017-18) during the search action, the AO issued notice under section 142(1) of the Act to the assessee to produce supporting documentary evidence, such as ledger accounts, copies of agreements, invoices, transport challans, delivery challans, etc., in respect ... part details like invoices, ledgers, purchase orders and payment details in respect of transactions done with entities mentioned in the notice issued under section 142(1) of the Act. Since the assessee could not furnish adequate supporting documents in respect of purchases from the following parties, the AO issued

Kalpataru Projects International Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-3(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals by the assessee for the assessment years

ITA 5962/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 37(1)

6112/Mum/2025 5 (A.Ys. 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2017-18) during the search action, the AO issued notice under section 142(1) of the Act to the assessee to produce supporting documentary evidence, such as ledger accounts, copies of agreements, invoices, transport challans, delivery challans, etc., in respect ... part details like invoices, ledgers, purchase orders and payment details in respect of transactions done with entities mentioned in the notice issued under section 142(1) of the Act. Since the assessee could not furnish adequate supporting documents in respect of purchases from the following parties, the AO issued

ACIT Circle-4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Khadamat Integrated Solutions Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 3766/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRABHASH

Swaran Singh S/O Sh Darbara Singh, Haryana vs. Gandesh Chander Gupta ITO Ward 1 (5) Shamli (Up), Uttarpardesh

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

ITA 7148/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.7148/धिल्ली/2025 (नि.व. 2012-13) Swaran Singh, S/O Darbara Singh, H No. 438, Gali No. 9, Uttar Nagar, Karnal, Haryana 132001 ...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant Pan: Ihyps-1069-E बिाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(5), ...... प्रनिवादी/Respondent Shamli, Uttar Pradesh 247776 अपीलार्थी द्वारा/Appellant By : None प्रधििािीद्वारा/Respondent By : Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr सुिवाई की निथर्थ/ Date Of Hearing : 16/12/2025 घोषणा की निथर्थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 16/12/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short ‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 05.07.2024, For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Appeal Is Time Barred By 403 Days. The Assessee Has Filed An Application Supported By An Affidavit Citing Reasons Causing Delay In Filing Of Appeal. After Perusal Of The Same, I Am Satisfied That Delay In Filing Of Appeal Is Not Intentional, The Delay Has Been Caused For The Reasons Stated In Petition Which Appears To Be Bonafide. Thus, Delay Of 403 Days In Filing Of Appeal Is Condoned & Appeal Is Admitted For Decision On Merits.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण धिल्ली पीठ “एस एम सी”, धिल्ली श्री धिकास अिस्थी, न्याधयक सिस्य IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

The Hisar Leading Bank Co-Op Non-Agri Thrift & Credit Society, Hisar vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1, Hisar

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5114/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI

The Hisar Leading Bank Co-Op Non-Agri Thrift & Credit Society, Hisar vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1, Hisar

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5113/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI

Satish Kumar & Sons(HUF), New Delhi vs. Ward-47(1) Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed as above terms for statistical purposes

ITA 5112/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI

Mall Hotel Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5064/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

issue of verification of genuineness of expenses. Notice under section 143(2) of the Act issued on 22.09.2019 and subsequently, notice under section 142(1) of the Act with detail questionnaire was issued on served online through e-filing portal which was also served upon the assessee. In response

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-I Noida, Noida vs. M/S Rudra Buildwell Homes Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

Accordingly, all the grounds of appeal taken by Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4119/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwaldy. Cit, M/S Rudra Buildwell Homes Central Circle-I, Private Limited, Noida-201301, Vs. D-53, Okhla, Phase-1, Uttar Pradesh. Delhi-110020. Pan-Aafcr6959P (Appellant) (Respondent) Dy. Cit, M/S Rudra Buildwell Projects Central Circle-I, Private Limited, Noida-201301, Vs. D-53, Okhla, Phase-1, Uttar Pradesh. Delhi-110020. Pan-Aaecr9589E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘G’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI

Punch Ratna Fasteners Private Limited, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle 19(1), Delhi

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

ITA 4066/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2018-19] Punch Ratna Fasters Vs Acit Pvt.Ltd., 4/8 Third Floor, Circle-19(1) East Punjabi Bagh, Delhi Delhi-110026. Pan-Aaacp1316M Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Naveen Gupta, Adv. & Shri Nakul Gupta, Adv. Respondent By Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 24.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24.12.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 16.05.2025 By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), Meerut [“Ld.Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. 288/2013-14 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Dated 17.02.2021 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 143(3A) & 143(3B) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Company Is Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing Of Cold & Hot Forged Automotive Components & Fasteners & Had Filed Its Return Of Income On 28.10.2018, Declaring Total Income Of Inr 28,88,88,610/-. Subsequently, The Said Return Of Income Was Selected For Complete Scrutiny Under Cass For The Issues Namely, (I) Expenditure Of Personal Nature & (Ii) Foreign Financial Interest. Subsequently, Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Act Was Served Upon The Assessee On 22.09.2019. Thereafter, Notices U/S 142(1) Of The Income-Tax Act 1961 Were Issued, In Response To Which, The Assessee Submitted Copies Of Relevant Documents & Explanations Online Through E- Filing Portal. After Considering The Submissions Made By The Assessee & All Relevant Materials Available On Record, Income Of The Assessee Was Assessed At Inr 29,16,01,890/- Vide Assessment Order Dated 17.02.2021 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act.

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 37

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “G” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI MANISH

Sms Group Gmbh, Delhi vs. ACIT.Circle-3(1)(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 377/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri M. S. Nethrapal, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “D”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL

BHA vs. Agar Dealers Pvt Ltd, Delhivs.ITO Ward-4(1), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2445/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 144Section 154Section 250Section 50C

return was duly processed under section 143(1) of the Act. The case was selected for limited scrutiny by issuing statutory notice under section 142(1) of the Act which was duly served upon the assessee. The assessee company did not comply with the notice. The show cause notice

Sms Group Gmbh, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle 3(1)(2), International Txation, New Delhi

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

ITA 993/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri M. S. Nethrapal, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “D”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL

Sms Group Gmbh, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle - 3(1)(2) Intl. Taxation, New Delhi

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

ITA 3297/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri M. S. Nethrapal, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “D”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL

Sms Group Gmbh, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-3(1)(2) Int. Taxation, New Delhi

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

ITA 1592/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri M. S. Nethrapal, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “D”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL

Sms Group Gmbh, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-3(1)(2), Int. Taxation, New Delhi

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

ITA 1591/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri M. S. Nethrapal, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “D”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(3), Dehradun, Aaykar Bhawan, Subhash Road vs. Uttarakhand Purv Sainik Kalyan Nigam Limited, Station Sub Area

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 92/DDN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun23 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Sh. Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: Sh. Tarandeep Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Amar Pal Singh, JCIT-DR
Section 10Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 149Section 617

date prescribed under section 139(1) of the Act, learned Assessing Officer is entitled as per the statute to issue notice under section 142(1) of the Act calling for the return of income. Without resorting to this statutory provision, the learned AO cannot directly proceed to reopen the assessment ... 15/04/2013, i.e. when the original assessment proceedings were pending as time limit for issue of notice u/s 143 (2) did not expire. Section 142(1) and Section 148 of the Act cannot operate simultaneously. There is no discretion vested with the Assessing Officer to utilize any one of them

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Golapar, Kathgodam vs. Ms Spp Polymer Limited, Paharganj, Delhi

In the result, Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 162/DDN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun23 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S Ssp Polymer Limited Of Income Tax, Aayakar Plot No. 1, Bsti Tante Wale, Bhawan, Chorgalia Road, Ram Kumar Marg, Motia Khan, Golapar, Kathgodam, Paharganj, Delhi, 110055 Haldwani Pan: Aaics9526Q

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69Section 69A

1 ACIT Vs. MS SPP Polymer Ltd. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI DELHI BENCH ‘DEHRADUN/’ NEW DELHI BEFORE