Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.268

Section 142(1) falls under section 142 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which corresponds to section 268 (Inquiry before assessment) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 268 of the 2025 Act

Correspondence checked against the ICAI tabular mapping of the two Acts and the BharatTax.co section commentary.

The decision most relied on for Section 142(1) is Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji (167 ITR 471), cited in 3,926 of the 17,244 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

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.

Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT
193 ITR 321 · 1992 · Supreme Court
1,695
citing judgments

The principle of consistency applies in tax matters, meaning a fundamental aspect found to be true in one assessment year should not be changed in a subsequent year if the order was not challenged.

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.

CIT v. Vatika Township Pvt. Ltd.
367 ITR 466 · 2014 · Supreme Court
1,558
citing judgments

Taxing statutes are presumed to operate prospectively unless a clear contrary intention for retrospective application is evident. The law applicable for determining tax liability is that which stands on the first day of the assessment year, following the principle that law looks forward, not backward (lex prospicit non respicit).

Judgments on Section 142(1)

Prafulla Anant Kukde, Mumbai vs. DCIT 42(3)(1), Kautilya Bhavan

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3521/MUM/2026[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

For Appellant: AGTPK5647E
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 192Section 271(1)(c)

Saurabh Rana, Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle 70(1), Delhi

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

ITA 801/DEL/2026[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jul 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: AIIPR9456K
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69

Abhishek Agrawal, Giridih vs. Dy. C. I. T., Central Circle, Varanasi

In the result, all three appeals are dismissed

ITA 60/VNS/2026[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi23 Jul 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.58, 59 & 60/Vns/2026 A.Ys. 2020-21, 2021-22 & 2022-23 Abhishek Agrawal, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Surya, Giridih, Jharkhand Central Circle, Varanasi Pan: Bbypa9729A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. O.P. Shukla & Abadhesh Dubey, Advocates Revenue By: Sh. Koushlendra Tewari, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.05.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.07.2026 O R D E R Per Bench: These Three Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, All Dated 14.08.2025, Wherein The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Lucknow Has Dismissed The Appeals Of The Assessee Against Levy Of Penalty Under Section 272A(1)(D) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Levied On The Assessee For The Assessment Years 2020-21, 2021-22 & 2022-23. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- Ita Nos.58, 59 & 60/Vns/2026 (A.Ys. 2020-21, 2021-22 & 2022-23 “1. Because The Ld. Commissioner Of (A) Was Not Justified To Confirm The Penalty U/S 272A(1)(D) Of The Income Tax Act Rs 10000/- Imposed By The Assessing Officer For Non-Compliance Of Notice U/S 142(1) Though The Order Has Been Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act. 2. Because The Ld. Commissioner Of (A) Was Not Justified To Placed Reliance On The Judgment Of Hon'Ble Itat Allahabad Bench & Hon'Ble Delhi Itat In Case Of Pratima Agrawal & Akhil Bhartiya Samyak Bhawan Trust. 3. Because, The Appellant Craves For A Right To Raise Any Additional Ground During The Course Of Hearing Of The Case. 4. Because The Order Passed By The Ld. Assessing Officer Is Erroneous, Bad In Law & On Facts & Is Liable To Be Deleted.”

For Appellant: Sh. O.P. Shukla, & Abadhesh DubeyFor Respondent: Sh. Koushlendra Tewari, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 202Section 272A(1)(b)Section 272A(1)(d)

Abhishek Agral, Giridih vs. Dy. C. I. T, Central Circle, Varanasi

In the result, all three appeals are dismissed

ITA 59/VNS/2026[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi23 Jul 2026AY 2021-2022

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.58, 59 & 60/Vns/2026 A.Ys. 2020-21, 2021-22 & 2022-23 Abhishek Agrawal, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Surya, Giridih, Jharkhand Central Circle, Varanasi Pan: Bbypa9729A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. O.P. Shukla & Abadhesh Dubey, Advocates Revenue By: Sh. Koushlendra Tewari, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.05.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.07.2026 O R D E R Per Bench: These Three Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, All Dated 14.08.2025, Wherein The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Lucknow Has Dismissed The Appeals Of The Assessee Against Levy Of Penalty Under Section 272A(1)(D) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Levied On The Assessee For The Assessment Years 2020-21, 2021-22 & 2022-23. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- Ita Nos.58, 59 & 60/Vns/2026 (A.Ys. 2020-21, 2021-22 & 2022-23 “1. Because The Ld. Commissioner Of (A) Was Not Justified To Confirm The Penalty U/S 272A(1)(D) Of The Income Tax Act Rs 10000/- Imposed By The Assessing Officer For Non-Compliance Of Notice U/S 142(1) Though The Order Has Been Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act. 2. Because The Ld. Commissioner Of (A) Was Not Justified To Placed Reliance On The Judgment Of Hon'Ble Itat Allahabad Bench & Hon'Ble Delhi Itat In Case Of Pratima Agrawal & Akhil Bhartiya Samyak Bhawan Trust. 3. Because, The Appellant Craves For A Right To Raise Any Additional Ground During The Course Of Hearing Of The Case. 4. Because The Order Passed By The Ld. Assessing Officer Is Erroneous, Bad In Law & On Facts & Is Liable To Be Deleted.”

For Appellant: Sh. O.P. Shukla, & Abadhesh DubeyFor Respondent: Sh. Koushlendra Tewari, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 202Section 272A(1)(b)Section 272A(1)(d)

Abhishek Agrawal, Giridih vs. Dy. C. I. T., Central Circle, Varanasi

In the result, all three appeals are dismissed

ITA 58/VNS/2026[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi23 Jul 2026AY 2020-2021

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.58, 59 & 60/Vns/2026 A.Ys. 2020-21, 2021-22 & 2022-23 Abhishek Agrawal, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Surya, Giridih, Jharkhand Central Circle, Varanasi Pan: Bbypa9729A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. O.P. Shukla & Abadhesh Dubey, Advocates Revenue By: Sh. Koushlendra Tewari, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.05.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.07.2026 O R D E R Per Bench: These Three Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, All Dated 14.08.2025, Wherein The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Lucknow Has Dismissed The Appeals Of The Assessee Against Levy Of Penalty Under Section 272A(1)(D) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Levied On The Assessee For The Assessment Years 2020-21, 2021-22 & 2022-23. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- Ita Nos.58, 59 & 60/Vns/2026 (A.Ys. 2020-21, 2021-22 & 2022-23 “1. Because The Ld. Commissioner Of (A) Was Not Justified To Confirm The Penalty U/S 272A(1)(D) Of The Income Tax Act Rs 10000/- Imposed By The Assessing Officer For Non-Compliance Of Notice U/S 142(1) Though The Order Has Been Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act. 2. Because The Ld. Commissioner Of (A) Was Not Justified To Placed Reliance On The Judgment Of Hon'Ble Itat Allahabad Bench & Hon'Ble Delhi Itat In Case Of Pratima Agrawal & Akhil Bhartiya Samyak Bhawan Trust. 3. Because, The Appellant Craves For A Right To Raise Any Additional Ground During The Course Of Hearing Of The Case. 4. Because The Order Passed By The Ld. Assessing Officer Is Erroneous, Bad In Law & On Facts & Is Liable To Be Deleted.”

For Appellant: Sh. O.P. Shukla, & Abadhesh DubeyFor Respondent: Sh. Koushlendra Tewari, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 202Section 272A(1)(b)Section 272A(1)(d)

Smt. Reeta Dubey, Jaunpur vs. Income Tax Officer - II, Jaunpur

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

ITA 128/VNS/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi23 Jul 2026AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2012-13 Smt. Reeta Dubey V. The Income Tax Officer – Ii W/O Shri P. P. Dubey Jaunpur Pachihatia Near St. Patrics School Jaunpur (U.P) Tan/Pan:Anbpd0960C (Applicant) (Respondent) Applicant By: Shri Rahul Gabhawala, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sabayasachi Chakraborty, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 17.01.2024, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Had Not Filed Her Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration. The Income Tax Department Was In Possession Of Information That The Assessee Had Made Cash Deposits Of Rs.10,16,800/- In Her Savings Bank Account Maintained With State Bank Of India During The Year Under Consideration. The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called 'The Act’) By The Issuing Notice Under Section 148 Of The Act On 29.03.2019. However, In Response To This

For Respondent: Shri Sabayasachi Chakraborty, D.R
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 5(1)Section 69A

Shweta Harishnkar Prasad Kanaujiya, Ballia vs. Income Tax Officer - 2(5), Ballia

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

ITA 46/VNS/2024[2017-2018]Status: HeardITAT Varanasi23 Jul 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Shweta Harishnkar Prasad Kanaujiya V. The Ito 2(5) D/O Rambilas Ram Ballia M/S Malap Harsenpur Indane Gramin Vitrak, Malap Harsenpur Ballia (U.P) Tan/Pan:Dutpk4832G (Applicant) (Respondent) Applicant By: None Respondent By: Shri Sabayasachi Chakraborty, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 29.01.2024, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Was The Proprietor Of M/S Malap Harsenpur Indane Gramin Vitrak, Ballia Engaged In Distribution Of Lpg Cylinder & Was Dealer Of Indian Oil Corporation Limited. In This Case, The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Palghar, Maharashtra Issued Notice Under Section 142(1) Of The Act On 24.01.2018, Requiring The Assessee To The File The Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration. As The Assessee Failed To File The Return Of Income, The Assessing Officer (Ao) Proceeded With Consequential Action Of Completing The Assessment Under Section 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961

For Respondent: Shri Sabayasachi Chakraborty, D.R
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 246ASection 69A

Shatrughan Singh, Jaunpur vs. Income Tax Officer - 2, Jaunpur - New

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 190/VNS/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi23 Jul 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Shatrughan Singh V. The Income Tax Officer 2 M/S S.S. Filling Station Jaunpur - New Thanagaddi, Kerakat Jaunpur (U.P) Tan/Pan:Caeps9919Q (Applicant) (Respondent) Applicant By: Shri Pankaj Shukla, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sabayasachi Chakraborty, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 12.09.2024, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That During The Captioned Assessment Year, The Assessee Ran A Petrol Pump In The Name & Style “M/S S.S. Filling Station At Thana Gaddi Kerakat, Jaunpur & Was The Proprietor Of The Said Firm. The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 07.11.2017 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.6,54,820/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Computer-Assisted Scrutiny Selection (Cass) For The Reason Of “Cash Deposit During Demonetization Period”. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Assessee Produced The Books Of Account For The

For Respondent: Shri Sabayasachi Chakraborty, D.R
Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 271ASection 69A

Vikram Yadav, Chandauli vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 3(3), Chandauli

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

ITA 177/VNS/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi23 Jul 2026AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2012-13 Vikram Yadav V. The Income Tax Officer Niyamtabad Ward 3(3) Chandauli (U.P) Chandauli Tan/Pan:Agzpy9824F (Applicant) (Respondent) Applicant By: None Respondent By: Shri Sabayasachi Chakraborty, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 24.06.2024, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Had Not Filed The Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration. The Income Tax Department Was In Possession Of Information That The Assessee Had Made Cash Deposits To The Tune Of Rs.26,87,500/- In His Bank Account No.360402011001994 Maintained With Union Bank Of India, Padao, Chandauli. The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called 'The Act’) After Issuing Notice Under Section 148 Of The Act To The Assessee. However, There Was No Response From The Side Of The Assessee In Response

For Respondent: Shri Sabayasachi Chakraborty, D.R
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69

Shiv Kumar Jaiswal, Padrauna vs. National Faceless Asst Centre, Income Tax Department

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

ITA 172/VNS/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi23 Jul 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Shiv Kumar Jaiswal V. Nfac, Income Tax Department Kandu Tola Sahabganj, Padrauna Kushinagar (U.P) Tan/Pan:Amepj7387B (Applicant) (Respondent) Applicant By: None Respondent By: Shri Sabayasachi Chakraborty, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 24.07.2024, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Had Not Filed The Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration. As Per Information Available With The Income Tax Department On Its Income-Tax Business Application (Itba) Portal, The Assessee Had Deposited Cash Of Rs.14,78,700/- In His Bank Account No.32845711700 Maintained With State Bank Of India, Dharamshala Road Branch, Padrauna, Kushinagar During The Demonetization Period. The Case Of The Assessee For The Assessment Year Under Consideration Was Reopened By Issuing Notice Under Section 148 Read With Section 147 Of The Income Tax

For Respondent: Shri Sabayasachi Chakraborty, D.R
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 271ASection 69A

Anil Sonkar, Mau vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 3(3), Mau

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

ITA 138/VNS/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi23 Jul 2026AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2012-13 Anil Sonkar V. The Income Tax Officer Nawapura Ward 3(3) Dohrighat, Ghosi Mau Mau (U.P) Tan/Pan:Ecaps9964P (Applicant) (Respondent) Applicant By: Shri Faiyaz Ahmad, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sabayasachi Chakraborty, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 22.03.2024, Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), Kolkata [Addl/Jcit(A)-3] For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That During The Capitioned Assessment Year, The Assessee Was Engaged In The Business Of Agriculture Foods, Beverages & Fruits. The Assessee Had Not Filed The Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration. The Income Tax Department Was In Possession Of Information That The Assessee Had Made Cash Deposits Totaling To Rs.31,88,300/- In His Two Bank Accounts, Viz. Bank Account No.31310134953 Maintained With State Bank Of India & Bank Account No.432802010019950 Maintained With Union Bank Of India

For Respondent: Shri Sabayasachi Chakraborty, D.R
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 69A

Pondha Sadhan Sahakari Samiti Limited, Pondha vs. Incpome Tax Officer Ward 1 (1)(2), Income, Income Tax Office Dehradun

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 335/DDN/2026[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun23 Jul 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan & Shri Sanjay Awasthiita No. 334/Ddn/2026 :Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Ita No. 335/Ddn/2026 :Asstt. Year : 2019-20 Pondha Sadhan Sahakari Samiti Ltd. Vs Income Tax Officer, Pondha, Sahaspur, Ward-1(1)(2), Dehradun-248001 Dehradun-248001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aanfp9138R Assesseeby : Sh. Sanjeev Nagar, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Mohan Lal Joshi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.07.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.07.2026

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjeev Nagar, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Mohan Lal Joshi, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 51Section 69A

Pondha Sadhan Sahakari Samiti Limited, Pondha vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward1(1)(2), Income Tax Office, Dehradun

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 334/DDN/2026[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun23 Jul 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan & Shri Sanjay Awasthiita No. 334/Ddn/2026 :Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Ita No. 335/Ddn/2026 :Asstt. Year : 2019-20 Pondha Sadhan Sahakari Samiti Ltd. Vs Income Tax Officer, Pondha, Sahaspur, Ward-1(1)(2), Dehradun-248001 Dehradun-248001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aanfp9138R Assesseeby : Sh. Sanjeev Nagar, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Mohan Lal Joshi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.07.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.07.2026

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjeev Nagar, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Mohan Lal Joshi, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 51Section 69A

Ramakanta Sahoo, Panchkula vs. DCIT/ACIT, Dehradun

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

ITA 306/DDN/2026[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun23 Jul 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

For Appellant: None (Adjournment application is rejected)For Respondent: Sh. Mohan Lal Joshi, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(2)(a)Section 80G

Smt. Sudesh Kumari Sharma, Jammu vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-6, Kathua

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 557/ASR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar23 Jul 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Udayan Das Gupta

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 44A

Manish Rasiklal Bawaria, Rajkot vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1(2), Rajkot

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 224/RJT/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot23 Jul 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 224/Rjt/2024 [ "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 ] Manishkumar R Bawaria Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2)(2), C/O. Eagle Motors Private Limited, Rajkot Vs. Eagle House, Near Moti Tanki Chowk, Aayakar Bhawan Race Course Ring Rajkot-360001, Gujarat Road, Rajkot-360001, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Achpb7342R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 410/Rjt/2023 [ "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 ] & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 219/Rjt/2024 [ "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 ] Manishkumar R Bawaria Assistant Commissioner Of Income C/O. Eagle Motors Private Limited, Tax, Circle - 1(2), Vs. Eagle House, Near Moti Tanki Chowk, Aayakar Bhawan Race Course Ring Rajkot-360001, Gujarat Road, Rajkot-360001, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Achpb7342R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri Ravinder Sindhu, Ld. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 01/07/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 23/07/2026 :: Order :: Per, Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: These Three Appeals Have Been Filed By The Same Assessee. Ita No. 410/Rjt/2023 For Assessment Year 2015-16 Is Directed Against The Order Of The

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ravinder Sindhu, Ld. CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144

Manishkumar R Bawaria, Rajkot vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2)(2), Rajkot

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 219/RJT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot23 Jul 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 224/Rjt/2024 [ "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 ] Manishkumar R Bawaria Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2)(2), C/O. Eagle Motors Private Limited, Rajkot Vs. Eagle House, Near Moti Tanki Chowk, Aayakar Bhawan Race Course Ring Rajkot-360001, Gujarat Road, Rajkot-360001, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Achpb7342R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 410/Rjt/2023 [ "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 ] & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 219/Rjt/2024 [ "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 ] Manishkumar R Bawaria Assistant Commissioner Of Income C/O. Eagle Motors Private Limited, Tax, Circle - 1(2), Vs. Eagle House, Near Moti Tanki Chowk, Aayakar Bhawan Race Course Ring Rajkot-360001, Gujarat Road, Rajkot-360001, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Achpb7342R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri Ravinder Sindhu, Ld. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 01/07/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 23/07/2026 :: Order :: Per, Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: These Three Appeals Have Been Filed By The Same Assessee. Ita No. 410/Rjt/2023 For Assessment Year 2015-16 Is Directed Against The Order Of The

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ravinder Sindhu, Ld. CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144

Manishkumar R Bawariya, Rajkot vs. Income Tax Officer Ward -1(2)(5), Rajkot

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 410/RJT/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot23 Jul 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 224/Rjt/2024 [ "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 ] Manishkumar R Bawaria Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2)(2), C/O. Eagle Motors Private Limited, Rajkot Vs. Eagle House, Near Moti Tanki Chowk, Aayakar Bhawan Race Course Ring Rajkot-360001, Gujarat Road, Rajkot-360001, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Achpb7342R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 410/Rjt/2023 [ "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 ] & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 219/Rjt/2024 [ "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 ] Manishkumar R Bawaria Assistant Commissioner Of Income C/O. Eagle Motors Private Limited, Tax, Circle - 1(2), Vs. Eagle House, Near Moti Tanki Chowk, Aayakar Bhawan Race Course Ring Rajkot-360001, Gujarat Road, Rajkot-360001, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Achpb7342R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri Ravinder Sindhu, Ld. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 01/07/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 23/07/2026 :: Order :: Per, Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: These Three Appeals Have Been Filed By The Same Assessee. Ita No. 410/Rjt/2023 For Assessment Year 2015-16 Is Directed Against The Order Of The

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ravinder Sindhu, Ld. CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144

Paresh Mangaldas Dharia, Vapi vs. ITO, Vapi Ward-7, Vapi

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 37/SRT/2026[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 Jul 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiparesh Mangaldas Dharia, Income Tax Officer, Plot No.205, 2Nd Phase, Ward-7, Vapi G.I.D.C., Vapi Income Tax Department, (Pan: Aanpd6264C) बनाम/ Fortune Square-Ii, 7Th Floor, Vs. Daman Road, Chala Vapi (Revenue/Appellant) (Assessee/Respondent) Assessee By Sh. A. Gopalakrishnan Aiyar, Ca Revenue By Shri Om Prakash Jha, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20-07-2026 Date Of Pronouncement 23-07-2026

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253

Ashokbhai Maganbhai Bhakta, Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(1), Surat

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 178/RJT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 Jul 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiashokbhai Maganbhai Income Tax Office, Bhakta, Amruta Estate, Patel Faliyu, बनाम/ Rajkot, Kamrej S.O., Nansad, Vs. Kamrej, Surat (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Amfpb1661D Assessee By Shri Arjav Vidani, Ca Revenue By Shri Om Prakash Jha, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21.07.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 23.07.2026

Section 139Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 154Section 156Section 69