← 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)

Shri Ramasamy Jayakumar, Kanchipuram vs. DCIT, Non Corp. Circle-17(1), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 852/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.S.P. ChidambaramFor Respondent: Mr.Gautham S. Mukundan
Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 90

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी एबी टी. वक", "ाियक

Mangal Tirth Estate Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward-4(1), Chennai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 30/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:30/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Mangal Tirth Estate Ltd., Income Tax Officer, 769, Spencer Plaza, Anna Salai, Vs. Corporate Ward- 4(1), Mount Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 002. [Pan:Aaacm-4614-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. N. V. Balaji, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Anitha, Addl. C.I.T. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 14.05.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 07.07.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Filed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeal, Addl/ Jcit (A)-4, Hyderabad, For The Assessment Year 2020-21, Vide Order Dated 07.11.2024. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Company Filed Its Return Of Income For The A.Y.2020-21 On 17.11.2020 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.11,20,57,920/-. The Return Of Income Was Processed By The Ao, Cpc, Bangalore On 29.12.2021 & Raised A Demand Of Rs.93,79,350/- By Denying The Beneficial Tax Rate As Per Section 115Baa Of The Act & By Applying The Tax Rate Of 30%.

For Appellant: Shri. N. V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl. C.I.T
Section 115BSection 119(2)(b)Section 154

original return of income, the assesse had claimed deduction under section 10B the Act, whereas in the revised return filed under section 139(5) of the Act, assessee did not claim deduction under section 10B of the Act, and instead claimed benefit of carry forward of louses

Avinash S Sadamate, ACIT, Circle 3 3 1 Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Rashmi Infrastructure Developers Limited, Mumbai

In the result, both the Revenue's appeal and Cross

ITA 6605/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal / Jay Bhansali, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Uma Shankar Prasad, (CIT DR)
Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 801B(10)Section 801B(10)(c)

that the assessee filed its return under section 139(1) wherein deduction was not claimed under section 80-IB.Subsequently, assessee filed revised return under section 139(5) wherein claim for deduction was raised. Provisions of section 80AC do not lay down condition that deduction under section 80- IB must be claimed ... return of income filed under section 139(1). Even otherwise, since assessee filed revised return under section 139(5) within stipulated time along with audit report and certificate in Form No.10CCB, there was sufficient compliance for claiming deduction under section 80-IB read with section 80AC and, thus, assessee

Shankar Lal Ludhani Through Lata Devi Ludhani As Legal Heir, Ajmer vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Ajmer

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 406/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 115BSection 133ASection 147Section 148Section 271A

such return, the assessee did not claim speculation loss of Rs. 69,93,450/-. Such return was, however, revised under Section 139(5) on 29.11.2006. The Assessing Officer disallowed the carry forward of the speculation loss on the ground that the same was not claimed in the original return ... Tribunal ruled in favour of the assessee. In particular, the Tribunal was of the view that once a return was revised under Section 139(5) of the Act, the original return filed under Section 139(1) would not survive. It was found that the revised return was filed within

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Arvind Limited, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes, whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 466/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamblearvind Limited, Dcit Vs. Naroda Road, Nfac, Delhi Ahmedabad-380025 (Dcit, Circle 1(1)(1), [Pan : Aabca 2398 D] Ahmedabad) Arvind Limited, Vs. Acit, Circle 1(1)(1), Naroda Road, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad-380025 [Pan : Aabca 2398 D]

For Appellant: Shri Biren Shah, AR &For Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT-DR &
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

from the end of the relevant assessment year, or before the completion of assessment, whichever is earlier, in accordance with the provisions of section 139(5). Infrequently, the assessee discovers a mistake or omission in the return of income after the expiry of the ITA No. 349 & 466/Ahd/2024 Assessee : Arvind

Arvind Limited, Ahmedabad vs. NFAC, Delhi Present Jurisdiction the DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes, whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 349/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamblearvind Limited, Dcit Vs. Naroda Road, Nfac, Delhi Ahmedabad-380025 (Dcit, Circle 1(1)(1), [Pan : Aabca 2398 D] Ahmedabad) Arvind Limited, Vs. Acit, Circle 1(1)(1), Naroda Road, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad-380025 [Pan : Aabca 2398 D]

For Appellant: Shri Biren Shah, AR &For Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT-DR &
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

from the end of the relevant assessment year, or before the completion of assessment, whichever is earlier, in accordance with the provisions of section 139(5). Infrequently, the assessee discovers a mistake or omission in the return of income after the expiry of the ITA No. 349 & 466/Ahd/2024 Assessee : Arvind

Effort Foudation (N.G.O), Delhi vs. ITO, Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1204/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 1204/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Effort Foundation (N.G.O.), Vs Income Tax Officer, Flat No. 233, Pocket-10, Nasirpura, Exemption Ward-1(1), Dwarka, New Delhi-110045 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaae4486D Assessee By: An Adjournment Application Revenue By : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 03.07.2025 Order

For Appellant: An Adjournment ApplicationFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)(b)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 57

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

Palam Rural Centre, Tiruppur vs. ACIT, Exemptions, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the Stay Application filed by the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 1560/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1560/Chny/2025 & S.A.No.51Chny/2025 [Arising In Ita No.: 1560/Chny/2025] िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2018-19 Palam Rural Centre, The Asst. Commissioner Of Pethampalayam, Vs. Income Tax (Exemptions), Veerapandi S.O., Coimbatore. Tiruppur – 641 605. [Pan: Aaatp-2929-F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Edser Raj, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Sita Krishnamoorthy, J.C.I.T.

For Appellant: Shri. Edser Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sita Krishnamoorthy, J.C.I.T
Section 11Section 12ASection 139

response from the side of the JAO over the said return. Under these Circumstances, the Appellant also filed another Return of Income under section 139(5) on 23/09/2020 vide Ack. No.576055421230920. The said return of income also remains unanswered from the side of the Income Tax Department. 7. Later, aggrieved

Nanda Kishore Ravula, Hyderabad vs. ADIT (International Tax)-2, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 552/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.552/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2020-21) Nanda Kishore Ravula Vs. Adit (International Hyderabad Tax)-2 [Pan :Agupr0664F] Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri Nikhill Tiwari, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Gurpreet Singh, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 26/06/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 30/06/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 21.01.2025 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Ld.Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Pertaining To A.Y.2020-21. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, An Individual, Filed His Original Return Of Income For The A.Y.2020- 21 On 15.12.2020, Declaring Total Income Of Rs.1,08,11,550/-. Subsequently, The Assessee Filed Revised Return Of Income On 30.03.2021 & Claimed Foreign Tax Credit (“Ftc”) Of 2 Nanda Kishore Ravula

For Appellant: Shri Nikhill Tiwari, ARFor Respondent: Shri Gurpreet Singh, DR
Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 91

passed disallowing the claim of FTC. The Appellant has not 5 Nanda Kishore Ravula 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

Dcm Shriram Limited, Delhi vs. Assessment Unit, Delhi

ITA 4328/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250Section 80GSection 80ISection 92C

ITA Nos.927 & 2587/Del/2022, 704/Del/2021, 4328 & 1495/Del/2024 Page | 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “I” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Dcm Shriram Ltd, New Delhi

ITA 927/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250Section 80GSection 80ISection 92C

ITA Nos.927 & 2587/Del/2022, 704/Del/2021, 4328 & 1495/Del/2024 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “I” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA

Dcm Shriram Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-7(1), New Delhi

ITA 2587/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250Section 80GSection 80ISection 92C

ITA Nos.927 & 2587/Del/2022, 704/Del/2021, 4328 & 1495/Del/2024 Page | 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “I” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE

Dcm Shriiram Limited, New Delhi vs. Neac, New Delhi

ITA 704/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250Section 80GSection 80ISection 92C

ITA Nos.927 & 2587/Del/2022, 704/Del/2021, 4328 & 1495/Del/2024 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “I” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA

District Probation & After Care Association Satara, Satara vs. ITO, Exemption Ward1(1), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2607/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar CIT-DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250

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

Brajendra Vikram Singh, Jalaun vs. ITO Ward 2(1)(5), Orai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 120/AGR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra24 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalincome Tax Officer, Brajendra Vikram Singh Ward-2(1)(5), 58, Ram Nagar Ajnari Vs. Orai-285001. Road, Orai, Jalaun-285001. Pan-Ciops6701G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Shri Shailendra Srivastava. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24/06/2025

Section 143(2)Section 250Section 6

return on 31.12.2018 after the selection of his case under scrutiny. It is pertinent to mention here that as per the provision of section 139(5) of the IT Act, with effect from 01.04.2017, any return filed after the end of the assessment year i.e. 31.03.2018 would be treated invalid

Enochy Children Relief Society, Jaipur vs. ITO Exemption Ward 1, Jaipur

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

ITA 236/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Poonia, C.A
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 12Section 12ASection 12A(1)(b)Section 13(9)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 288

आयकरअपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुरन्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh]U;kf

Enochy Children Relief Society, Jaipur vs. ITO Exemption Ward 1, Jaipur

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

ITA 235/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Poonia, C.A
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 12Section 12ASection 12A(1)(b)Section 13(9)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 288

आयकरअपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुरन्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh]U;kf

Ajay Jaisinghani, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -5(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 972/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI. NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA (Accountant Member), MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora, Shri Pranay GandhiFor Respondent: DR. K. R. Subhash (CIT-DR)
Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 250Section 55(2)(aa)Section 55(2)(ac)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI. NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM

Rogi Kalyan Samiti Chital, Chital Amreli vs. ITO Exemption Ward-2 Rajkot, Rajkot

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

ITA 328/RJT/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot18 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.328/Rjt/2023 Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Rogi Kalyan Samiti Chital, Income Tax Officer C. H. C. Chital, Chital District, Vs. (Exemption), Ward – 2, Rajkot Amreli-365 601 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aactr 0652 F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 154Section 234A

filed the revised return within time limit prescribed u/s 139(5) of the Act, the relevant ITA.328/RJT/2023/AY.2013-14 Rogi Kalyan Samiti Chital provisions of section 139(5) of the Act, are reproduced below for better understanding: “(5) If any person, having furnished a return under sub-section (1), or in pursuance

DCIT Central Circle-17, New Delhi vs. Al Ammar Frozen Foods Exports Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi

ITA 2180/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri S Rifaur Rahman

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 44ASection 80I

inadvertently omitted to claim the deduction under Section 80IB(11A) of the Act. The Assessee Company revised its return of income under Section 139(5) of the Act on 29.09.2020. However, due to a software error while generating the XML, the brought forward business losses and unabsorbed depreciation of Rs.6 ... this revised return. Hence, in order to rectify the aforesaid error, the Assessee Company filed a second revised return dated 10.11.2020 under Section 139(5) of the Act which included both the deduction under Section 80IB(11A) of the Act as well as the correct adjustment of carried forward losses