← All Phrases

“Section 139(5)”

Section References (mined)Section 139Section 139(5)688 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 139(5) is Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT (284 ITR 323), cited in 1,842 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 139(5)

Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT
284 ITR 323 · 2006 · Supreme Court
1,842
citing judgments

An assessee cannot raise a new claim or a claim not made in the original or revised return of income for the first time directly before the Assessing Officer during assessment proceedings.

Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT
384 ITR 490 · 2016 · High Court
631
citing judgments

Co-operative banks are not fundamentally different from co-operative societies, entitling them to claim deductions under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961, including for interest income treated as business income.

CIT v. Yokogawa India Ltd.
391 ITR 274 · 2017 · Supreme Court
290
citing judgments

Deduction under Section 10A or 10AA of the Income-tax Act is computed on the profits of the eligible unit without first setting off losses from other units or non-eligible units. Conversely, losses incurred by an eligible unit are allowed to be set off against the assessee's other taxable business profits.

Smt. Tarulata Shyam v. CIT
108 ITR 345 · 1977 · Supreme Court
209
citing judgments

Taxing statutes must be interpreted strictly, assuming that the law-making authority does not commit a mistake or make an omission. There is no room for purposive interpretation under direct tax laws.

PCIT v. Wipro Ltd.
140 Taxmann.com 223 · 2022 · Supreme Court
192
citing judgments

Exemption provisions under Chapter III, such as Section 10B(8), must be interpreted strictly, and any claim for such exemptions must be made in the return of income. The principles governing Chapter III (incomes not forming part of total income) differ from those for Chapter VIA (deductions in computing total income).

DCIT v. Reliance Industries Ltd.
88 ITD 273 · 2004 · ITAT
169
citing judgments

Interest, sales tax, and purchase tax subsidies received by an assessee are generally considered capital receipts, not revenue income, for income tax purposes.

CIT v. Torrent Power Ltd.
354 ITR 630 · 2013 · High Court
166
citing judgments

If an assessee possesses sufficient interest-free own funds to cover investments yielding exempt income, it is presumed that such investments are made from these own funds, precluding any disallowance of interest expenditure under Section 14A, even when borrowed funds are also available.

Lissie Medical Institutions v. CIT
348 ITR 344 · 2012 · High Court
164
citing judgments

The Kerala High Court held that charitable institutions claiming exemption under Section 11 are not entitled to claim depreciation on assets used for charitable purposes, taking a view contrary to most other High Courts.

Judgments citing Section 139(5)

Hamdard Laboratories Inida, Delhi vs. DCIT Circle(E) 1(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 8826/DEL/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2023-24] Hamdard Laboratories India, Dcit, Circle(Exempt), Hamdard Building, 2A/3, Asaf Civic Centre, New Delhi Ali Road, New Delhi-110002 Vs Pan-Aaath0842H Appellant Respondent Appellant/Assessee By Shri S.R Mehta, Ca Respondent/Revenue By Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Date Of Hearing 19.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 20.03.2026 Order Per Amitabh Shukla, Am

Section 10Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250

assessee had, pursuant to a notice from the Revenue, had filed a revised return under section 139(5) on 28.12.2023. The CPC, Bangalore issued an intimation dated 18.11.2024, determining taxable income of the assessee at Rs.112,15,57,160/-. The assessee contested the impugned adjustment of CPC before

Sharanjit Kaur, Chandigarh vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Chandigarh

The appeal stand partly allowed

ITA 237/CHANDI/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Mar 2026AY 2014-2015

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.237/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Smt. Sharanjit Kaur Ito Ward-2 (1) बनाम/ Vs. H. No. 2359, Sector – 23C, Aaykar Bhawan, Sector – 17 Chandigarh - 160023 Chandigarh - 160017 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Acwpk-0060-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : S/Shri M. R. Sharma (Advocate) & Om Datt Sharma (Advocate) – Ld. Ars ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24-02-2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 19-03-2026 : आदेश / O R D E R Laliet Kumar () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac [Cit(A)] Dated 09-01-2025 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act On 23-03-2022. The Prime Grievance Of The Assessee Is Denial Of Deduction U/S 54F Under The Head Long-Term Capital Gains

For Appellant: S/Shri M. R. Sharma (Advocate) & Om DattFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 118Section 139(5)Section 147Section 148Section 54F

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, CHANDIGARH PHYSICAL HEARING BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JM AND

Communidade of Chicalim, Chicalim vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 2(1), Panaji

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

ITA 207/PAN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji17 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. No.207/Pan/2024 (A.Y. 2016-17 ) Comunidade Of Chicalim, Vs Acit Circle 2(1), Ground Floor, St Xavier Aaykar Bhavan, . Church Building, Edc, Patto, Chicalim-403802, Panjim South Goa,Goa. Goa-403001. Pan .No. Aaaabc0196P (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)

Section 139(5)Section 57Section 74

ability of deduction, of interest received along with enhanced compulsory acquisition of land for the delay. The A.O dealt on the provisions of section 139(5) of the Act and observes that in the absence of filing a revised return within the time allowed, the claim cannot be accepted

Electronfab Engineering Pvt Ltd, Seepz Sez Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

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

ITA 4828/MUM/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2026AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Nishit Gandhi, Advocate (virtually appear) & Mrs. Usha DalalFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Joshi (Sr. DR)
Section 115BSection 115JSection 139(5)Section 139(9)Section 143(1)Section 250

notice for a defective return was issued under section 139(9) of the Act. In response, the assessee filed a revised return under section 139(5) of the Act. Prior to filing the revised return, the assessee had already submitted Form No. 10IC before the CPC. The Ld. AR further ... response to the defect notice u/s 139(9) issued by the CPC. It is not a revised return under section 139(5) of the Act. This return was filed to remove the defect as notified vide defect memo dated 22.11.2024 (Ref. Pg. 107 & 108 of Paper Book). 3. Prior

Navdeep Singh, New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle - 13, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee ITA No

ITA 401/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Hon’Ble & Shri Naveen Chandra, Hon’Ble

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250(6)Section 40Section 68

401/DEL/2021 Navdeep Singh vs DCIT IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH

DCIT, Circle-3(4), Mumbai vs. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for Assessment Year 2016-17

ITA 3991/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neena Jeph, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 35Section 41(1)Section 801C

assessing officer had no jurisdiction to consider the claim made by the assessee in the revised return filed after the time prescribed by Section 139(5) for filing a revised return had already expired. 9. Therefore, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment of the High Court

DCIT, Circle-3(4), Mumbai vs. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for Assessment Year 2016-17

ITA 3971/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neena Jeph, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 35Section 41(1)Section 801C

assessing officer had no jurisdiction to consider the claim made by the assessee in the revised return filed after the time prescribed by Section 139(5) for filing a revised return had already expired. 9. Therefore, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment of the High Court

Meridian Marketers, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 1879/HYD/2025[2022-23]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad06 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita.No.1879/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2022-2023 Meridian Marketers, The Acit, Hyderabad. Telangana. Central Circle-2(1), Vs. Pin 500 033. Hyderabad. Pan Abmfm1321M Telangana. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By -None- राज" व "ारा/Revenue By : Sri Mathivanan S A, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 03.03.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 06.03.2026 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao:

For Respondent: Sri Mathivanan S A, Sr. AR
Section 131Section 132ASection 139(4)Section 139(5)Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 69A

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘A’ Bench, Hyderabad BEFORE SHRI VIJAY

Amith Vishnav Gudimella, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-12(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1705/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad06 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita.No.1705/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2020-2021 Amith Vishnav The Income Tax Officer, Gudimella, Hyderabad. Ward-12(1), Pin – 500 008. Telangana. Vs. Hyderabad. Pan Aghpv2565J Telangana. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By Sri T Chaitanya Kumar, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By : Ms Reema Yadav, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 03.03.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 06.03.2026 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao:

For Respondent: MS Reema Yadav, Sr. AR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 90Section 91

salary income earned in the US, nor claimed FTC. When the revised return of the assessee was filed within the limitation provided under section 139(5) of the Act, then the claim of FTC of the assessee is linked with the foreign income declared in the revised return. Even otherwise ... passed disallowing the claim of FTC. The Appellant has not filed Form 67 before the time allowed under section 139(5) of the Act. The word "shall" has been used in the rule 128(9) therefore the provisions of rule 128 are mandatory in nature and not directory. From

Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax Central Circle - 6(2), Mumbai vs. Tata Aig General Insurance Co. Ltd, Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No.2 of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2403/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra (CIT DR)
Section 10(38)Section 111ASection 112Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234DSection 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JAGADISH, ACCOUNTANT

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 6(2), Mumbai vs. Tata Aig General Insurance Co. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the revenue’s bearing ITA No

ITA 2398/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra (CIT DR)
Section 10(38)Section 111ASection 112Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234DSection 250

only in this assessment year that it has been characterised as capital gain by way of filing of revised return under section 139(5) of the Act. Thus, the aforesaid CBDT circular has given a concession to the assessee which cannot be denied since circulars issued by the CBDT

Tata Aig General Insurance Company Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax-8(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the revenue’s bearing ITA No

ITA 1450/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra (CIT DR)
Section 10(38)Section 111ASection 112Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234DSection 250

only in this assessment year that it has been characterised as capital gain by way of filing of revised return under section 139(5) of the Act. Thus, the aforesaid CBDT circular has given a concession to the assessee which cannot be denied since circulars issued by the CBDT

Tata Aig General Insurance Company Limited (Tagic), Mumbai vs. Assessment Unit, Income-Tax Department

ITA 1432/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra (CIT DR)
Section 10(38)Section 111ASection 112Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234DSection 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JAGADISH, ACCOUNTANT

Tulsidas Virji Chothani, Mumbai vs. Income-Tax Officer Ward 27(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 319/MUM/2026[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailtulsidas Virji Chothani, 601, 6Th Floor, Shantrunjay Building, Neelkanth Valley, Ghatkopar East, Mumbai - 400077 ............... Appellant Pan: Aabpc0337M V/S Income Tax Officer, Ward-27(3)(1) It-Office, Vasi Railway Station Building, ……………… Respondent Navi Mumbai - 400703

For Appellant: Shri Mehul ShahFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 44A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H(SMC)” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI SANDEEP SINGH

Shri. John Kishore, Tamil Nadu vs. Assessing Officer, Madurai

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

ITA 4090/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 4090/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21 Shri John Kishore, The Deputy Commissioner No.13, Munsif Court South Vs. Of Income Tax, Street, Sattur, Non-Corporate Circle 2, Virudhunagar – 626 203. Madurai Pan: Aztpj 1241L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri S.P. Chidambaram, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Aroon Praasad, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.02.2026 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 02.03.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R Per George George K: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Addl./Jcit(A)’S, Indore Order Dated 09.10.2025 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2020-21. :- 2 -: 2. The Solitary Issue That Is Raised Is Whether The First Appellate Authority (Faa) Had Erred In Law & On Facts In Not Granting Foreign Tax Credit (Ftc) Of Rs.5,73,078/-.

For Appellant: Shri S.P. Chidambaram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Aroon Praasad, Addl.CIT
Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 90

Order dated 11.07.2023 against which the present appeal has been filed. The Appellant has not filed Form 67 before the time allowed under section 139(5) of the Act. The word "shall" have been used in the rule 128(9) therefore the provisions of rule 128 are mandatory in nature

B.V.Kapadia HUF, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 2879/KOL/2025[201-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Feb 2026

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 139Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 199Section 250

Kapadia HUF. wrong statement was noticed in the return of income, the appellant was required to file a revised return under section 139(5) of the Income-tax Act within the prescribed time-limit. 6.2 Further, it is pertinent to mentioned here that an updated return

Alpa Harshadbhai Gandhi, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2153/AHD/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Feb 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2023-24

For Appellant: Shri D K Parikh, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Veerbadram Vislavath, Sr. D.R
Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “SMC” BENCH Before Dr. BRR Kumar, Vice President And Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member

Rajendra Kumar Kapoor, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 29, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2060/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Feb 2026AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kochar, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, DR
Section 139(5)Section 147Section 148Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND SHRIPRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM ITA

M/S Sagar Tie Up Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1507/KOL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, DR
Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND SHRIPRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM ITA

Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Circle, Pune, Pmt Building, Swargate vs. Shivai Vidya Prasarak Mandal, Thane

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2536/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Tanmay Milind PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar
Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)(b)Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 234A

there remains no dispute to the fact that the return of income filed by the assessee is a belated return which as per section 139(5) of the Act could have been filed latest by 31.03.2019. Now, at this stage, we would like to refer to Circular issued by CBDT ... section 139 of the Act has been mentioned and does not specify whether it is about u/s 139(1) of the Act or section 139(5) of the Act, the view beneficial to the assessee needs to be accepted and, since section 139(1) and section 139(5) are part