“ Section 142(1) ”

Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT

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.

243 ITR 83 · 2000 · Supreme Court

2,943

CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd.

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.

38 ITD 320 · 1991 · ITAT

2,267

Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar v. CWT

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.

223 ITR 480 · 1997 · High Court

2,040

214 ITR 801 · 1995 · Supreme Court

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

1,967

CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd.

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.

320 ITR 561 · 2010 · Supreme Court

1,673

CIT v. B.N. Bhattacharya & Another

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.

118 ITR 461 · 1997 · Supreme Court

1,656

82 ITR 540 · 1971 · Supreme Court

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

1,579

ITA 6658/DEL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Feb 2021AY 2013-14

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)

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Quality Synthetics Industries Ltd., Kolkata

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

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

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘F’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N. K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND

Vikas Chowdhary, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 36(4), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed

ITA 9742/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Feb 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Dubey, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69

such reopening of the assessment is liable to be quashed. He has submitted that no notice under section 142(1) or any query under section 133(6) have been issued. No letter have been delivered to the assessee. 5. On the other hand, Ld. D.R. relied upon the Orders

Gaurang Products Pvt. Ltd, Delhi vs. ITO Ward-11(3), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed

ITA 5196/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Feb 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Suresh K. Gupta, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Dubey, Sr. DR

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68Section 69C

assessment was originally completed under section 143(3) vide Order Dated 14.12.2011 [PB-53]. In the original assessment proceedings, A.O. issued notice under section 142(1) Dated 24.06.2011 [PB-54] asking the assessee to file details of share capital/share application money received along with complete address and latest income ... share applicants i.e., their confirmations, bank statements and income tax returns, balance-sheet etc., The A.O. again issued notice under section 142(1) Dated 21.09.2011 [PB-59] asking the assessee to file the details of share application money received in assessment year under appeal in the particular Format. The assessee

Davindra Singh, Meerut vs. ITO, Ward- 1(2), Meerut

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 3873/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Feb 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Dubey, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “SMC-1”: DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA.No.3873/Del./2017

Shri Virender Singh, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ghaziabad

In the result both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3760/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Feb 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Akhilesh Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Dubey, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 250(4)Section 68

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G”: NEW DELHI (Through Video Conferencing) BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI

Shri Virender Singh, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ghaziabad

In the result both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3759/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Feb 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Akhilesh Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Dubey, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 250(4)Section 68

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G”: NEW DELHI (Through Video Conferencing) BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI

Abhishek Verma, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands dismissed

ITA 1722/DEL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jan 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishia.Y. 2006-07

For Appellant: Sh. Himanshu Aggarwal &For Respondent: Sh. Satpal Gulati, CIT(DR)

Section 142(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 271FSection 292BSection 3

given by the Ld. CIT(A) and reject this plea of jurisdiction of the Assessee. 5.1 As regards the service of notice under section 142(1) of the Act, after going through the orders passed by the revenue authorities, we are of the view that Notice u/s. 142(1

Addl. CIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Ircon International Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is accordingly dismissed

ITA 3768/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jan 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing]

Section 143(3)Section 148

very issue which forms the basis of reasons recorded in the petition and replied the same in response to notice under section 142(1) before the assessment was 26 originally framed, thus the successor AO has come to a different opinion on the same set of the facts. The finding ... other source. 10. As against that, when one goes through the various submissions made by the Petitioner in response to notices under Section 142(1) of the Act, before the assessment was originally framed on 26-12-2007, it becomes clear that in relation to the very issue which forms

M/S Phoenix Projects Pvt. Ltd., Rajkot-Gujarat vs. The Pr. Commr. of Income Tax-1, Rajkot-Gujarat

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 95/RJT/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot01 Jun 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Madhumita Roy)

For Appellant: Shri D. M. Rindani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ranjeet Singh, Sr. DR

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

application of mind. As per the learned AR there was an enquiry raised by the AO in the notice issued under section 142(1) of the Act which was duly replied by the assessee. The learned AR in support of his contention drew our attention on pages ... assessee qua to such queries. The relevant queries raised by the AO as per the assessee in the notice issued under section 142(1) of the Act, dated 5-9- 2013 read as under: 6. Furnish the TDS credit with reconciliation statement for the financial year under consideration

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Ansal Properties & Industr

ITA - 599 / 2004HC Delhi18 Sept 2018

Section 158BSection 260A

Ansal and after consideration of all the above facts and the interpretation of the „Note‟ issued questionnaire dated 11.10.2001 alongwith the notice under section 142(1) to the assessee. Sh. Rajeev Wadhwa, Sh. Rakesh Mahajan and Sh. Yatindra Singh were also subjected to cross examination by the assessee. The assessee

Indian National Cong. (I) Aicc vs. C.I.T.- XI

ITA - 180 / 2001HC Delhi23 Mar 2016

Section 139Section 13A

Turning to the case on hand, the Income Tax Department ('Department') first issued a notice to the INC on 20th September 1995 under Section 142(1) of the Act asking it to file its income tax returns for AY 1995-96. A reminder notice was issued on 30th November ... submitted that in the facts of the case since the INC failed to comply with the terms of notice under Section 142(1) of the Act, it was open to the AO to make a best 2016:DHC:2463-DB ITA Nos. 145/2001 & 180/2001 Page 58 of 71 judgment assessment

Commissioner of Income Tax Del vs. M/S Soverign Commercial P. Ltd

The appeals are allowed with costs of Rs

ITA - 164 / 2002HC Delhi22 Feb 2016

ITA - 165 / 2002HC Delhi22 Feb 2016

ACPL by its Advocate Mr. T.P. Thapa to the ACIT, New Delhi in which inter alia it was stated that notice under Section 142(1) of the Act had been received by ACPL through Rattan Gupta &Co. The High Court of Sikkim declined to draw an inference from the above ... context of the Assessees filing their returns for AYs 1987 to 1990 only in 1990. Despite detailed information being sought under Sections 142(1) and 143(2), no information was provided and according to the Revenue, there was non- cooperation. Further the Assessees have been unable to deny that barring

Commissioner of Income Tax Del vs. M/S Swastik Commercial P. Ltd

The appeals are allowed with costs of Rs

ITA - 167 / 2002HC Delhi22 Feb 2016

Commissioner of Income Tax Del vs. M/S Trishul Commercial P. Ltd

The appeals are allowed with costs of Rs

ITA - 168 / 2002HC Delhi22 Feb 2016

Commissioner of Income Tax- Delhi vs. M/S Pasupati Nath Commr. P. Ltd

The appeals are allowed with costs of Rs

ITA - 278 / 2006HC Delhi24 Nov 2015

Royal Jordanian Airlines vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeals are disposed of and the writ petitions are allowed in the

ITA - 279 / 2006HC Delhi24 Nov 2015

stating that RJA has not declared its income in terms of Section 44BBA of the Act and in response to another notice under Section 142(1) in respect of AY 1993- 94, RJA filed its return for the aforementioned AYs 1989-90 to 1993- 94. RJA disclosed its gross receipts

Royal Jordanian Airlines vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeals are disposed of and the writ petitions are allowed in the

ITA - 280 / 2006HC Delhi24 Nov 2015

Royal Jordanian Airlines vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeals are disposed of and the writ petitions are allowed in the

ITA - 580 / 2006HC Delhi24 Nov 2015

Royal Jordanian Ailines vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeals are disposed of and the writ petitions are allowed in the