← 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 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Satya Securities Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6671/MUM/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri A.K. TibrewalFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang B. Irani
Section 148Section 250Section 40A(3)Section 68

selected for scrutiny and notice under section 143(2) was issued and served on the assessee. Thereafter, detailed questionnaire along with notice under section 142(1) of the Act was issued and same was attended by the assessee and submissions were filed. The AO, upon scrutiny of details submitted ... failure on the part of the assessee to make a return under section 139 or in response to notice issued under section 142(1) or section 148; or (ii) due to failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for its assessment

Kusuma Cashews, Karkala vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee

ITA 511/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115BSection 132Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 69

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Ms. PADMAVATHY S

Essilor India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 448/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 448/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Essilor India Pvt. Ltd., 10Th Floor, Prestige The Deputy Trade Tower, Commissioner Of 46, Palace Road, Income Tax, High Grounds Circle – 2(1)(1), Sampangi Rama Bangalore. Vs. Nagar, Bengaluru – 560 001. Pan: Aaace4623J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Chavali Narayan, Ca : Shri Praveen Karanth, Revenue By Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 27-07-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-10-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 31/03/2022 Passed By The National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi For A.Y. 2017-18 On Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Chavali Narayan, CA
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 92Section 92C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL

M.N.Rangamani, Chennai vs. Income Tax Officer, Corporate Ward-2(1), Chennai

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

ITA 21/CHNY/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.21/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shri M.N. Rangamani, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 94, First Avenue, Defence Officers Corporate Ward 2(1), Colony, Ekkattuthangal, Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 032. [Pan:Aaepr5701M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri M.N.Rangamani, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. T.M. Sugunthamala, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 10.10.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19.10.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 5, Chennai Dated 14.02.2020 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2015-16. The Only Issue Involved In This Appeal Relates To Confirmation Of Disallowance Of ₹.37,15,836/- Under Section 14A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri M.N.Rangamani, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. T.M. Sugunthamala, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

complete scrutiny and a notice under section 143(2) of the Act dated 18.07.2016 was served on the assessee. Subsequently, notice under section 142(1) r.w.s. 129 of the Act and letters were issued calling for details. After considering the submissions of the assessee, the Assessing Officer has completed

Soma Enterprise Limited, Hyderabad vs. The PCIT (Central), Mumbai-1, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1145/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Oct 2022AY 2017-18
Section 115JSection 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 154Section 263

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘E‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA

Soma Enterprise Limited, Hyderabad vs. The PCIT (Central), Mumbai-1, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1144/MUM/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Oct 2022AY 2016-2017
Section 115JSection 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 154Section 263

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘D‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA

Soma Enterprise Limited, Mumbai vs. The PCIT (Central), Mumbai-1, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1143/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Oct 2022AY 2015-16
Section 115JSection 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 154Section 263

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘D‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA

Soma Enterprises Limited, Telangana vs. The PCIT (Central), Mumbai-1, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1142/MUM/2022[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Oct 2022AY 2014-2015
Section 115JSection 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 154Section 263

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘D‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA

Soma Enterprises Limited, Telagana vs. The PCIT (Central), Mumbai-1, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1141/MUM/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Oct 2022AY 2013-2014
Section 115JSection 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 154Section 263

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘D‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA

Soma Enterprises Limited, Telangana vs. The PCIT, (Central)-Mumbai-1, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1140/MUM/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Oct 2022AY 2012-2013
Section 115JSection 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 154Section 263

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘D‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA

Soma Enterprises Limited, Mumbai vs. The PCIT, (Central)-Mumbai-1, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1139/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Oct 2022AY 2011-12
Section 115JSection 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 154Section 263

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘D‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA

Soma Enterprises Limited, Mumbai vs. The PCIT, (Central)-Mumbai-1, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1138/MUM/2022[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Oct 2022AY 2010-2011
Section 115JSection 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 154Section 263

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘D‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA

Soma Enterprises Limited, Mumbai vs. The PCIT(Central), Mumbai-1, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1137/MUM/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Oct 2022AY 2009-10
Section 115JSection 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 154Section 263

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘D‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA

ACIT- CC- 3(3), Cr- 3, Mumb vs. M/S. Candor Renewable Energy Pvt. Ltd.(Erstwhile 'Bhadrawati Ispat & Energy Ltd'.), Mumbai

ITA 2561/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2561/Mum/2021 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2560/Mum/2021 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Asst. Commissioner Of M/S Candor Renewable Energy Pvt. Ltd. Inocome Tax-Cc-3(3), (Erstwhile Bhadrawati Central Range-3, बनाम/ Ispat & Energy Ltd) R. No. 1923, 19Th Floor, Air Vs. 404, 4Th Floor, Hub Town India Building, Nariman Solaris, N. S. Phadke Point, Mumbai-400021 Marg, Mumbai-400 069 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aadcr1238F (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 697/Mum/2022 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 698/Mum/2022 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Dy. Commissioner Of M/S Candor Renewable Energy Pvt. Ltd. (Erstwhile Income Tax-Cc-3(3), Bhadrawati Ispat & Energy Central Range-3, बनाम/ Ltd) R. No. 1923, 19Th Floor, Vs. 404, 4Th Floor, Hub Town Air India Building, Solaris, N. S. Phadke Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 069 Mumbai-400021 (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay V. DeshmukhFor Respondent: Shri Mani Jain & Prateek
Section 153ASection 68

been issued on 28.09.2019 once again in the name of Bhadrawati lspat & Energy Limited. A notice under section 142(1) of the Act has been issued by the AO on 14.12.2019 once again in the name of Bhadrawati lspat & Energy Limited (now merged with Candor Renewable Energy Private Limited

Shree Ginger Enterprises Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT - CC- 5(3), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 6377/MUM/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250

months from the end of the financial year in which the return under section 139 or in response to notice under section 142(1) of the Act is furnished. Thus, the time period provided in the aforesaid section for issuance of notice is in respect of Shree Ginger Enterprises ... return filed under section 139 or in response to notice under section 142 (1) of the Act. However, in the present case, reassessment proceedings were initiated by the AO under section 147 and notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued only pursuant there to. Thus, in view

Shree Ginger Enterprises Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cr 5(3), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1334/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250

months from the end of the financial year in which the return under section 139 or in response to notice under section 142(1) of the Act is furnished. Thus, the time period provided in the aforesaid section for issuance of notice is in respect of Shree Ginger Enterprises ... return filed under section 139 or in response to notice under section 142 (1) of the Act. However, in the present case, reassessment proceedings were initiated by the AO under section 147 and notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued only pursuant there to. Thus, in view

Shree Ginger Enterprises Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cr 5(3), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1333/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250

months from the end of the financial year in which the return under section 139 or in response to notice under section 142(1) of the Act is furnished. Thus, the time period provided in the aforesaid section for issuance of notice is in respect of Shree Ginger Enterprises ... return filed under section 139 or in response to notice under section 142 (1) of the Act. However, in the present case, reassessment proceedings were initiated by the AO under section 147 and notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued only pursuant there to. Thus, in view

Shree Ginger Enterprises Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cr 5(3), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1332/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250

months from the end of the financial year in which the return under section 139 or in response to notice under section 142(1) of the Act is furnished. Thus, the time period provided in the aforesaid section for issuance of notice is in respect of Shree Ginger Enterprises ... return filed under section 139 or in response to notice under section 142 (1) of the Act. However, in the present case, reassessment proceedings were initiated by the AO under section 147 and notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued only pursuant there to. Thus, in view

Shree Ginger Enterprises Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cr 5(3), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1331/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250

months from the end of the financial year in which the return under section 139 or in response to notice under section 142(1) of the Act is furnished. Thus, the time period provided in the aforesaid section for issuance of notice is in respect of Shree Ginger Enterprises ... return filed under section 139 or in response to notice under section 142 (1) of the Act. However, in the present case, reassessment proceedings were initiated by the AO under section 147 and notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued only pursuant there to. Thus, in view

Shree Ginger Enterprises Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cr 5(3), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1330/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250

months from the end of the financial year in which the return under section 139 or in response to notice under section 142(1) of the Act is furnished. Thus, the time period provided in the aforesaid section for issuance of notice is in respect of Shree Ginger Enterprises ... return filed under section 139 or in response to notice under section 142 (1) of the Act. However, in the present case, reassessment proceedings were initiated by the AO under section 147 and notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued only pursuant there to. Thus, in view