← 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)

Rajesh Kumar Jaiswal, Allahabad vs. Deputy/ACIT(Central), Allahabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 16/ALLD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad02 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: the query raised by the assessing authority vide questionnaire issued under section 142 (1) dated 23.01.2021, in assessment proceedings for the AY 2018-19.

For Appellant: Sh. Nikhil Agarwal & Ms. VidishaFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 115Section 115BSection 142Section 24Section 250Section 68Section 69

submitted that the assessee was wrong in stating that he was not able to file a revised return under section 139(5) because of the processing, because section 139(5) only restricts the filing of a revised return if an assessment has been completed and processing under section ... statement or an application for correction in the return originally filed cannot be construed to be a revised return within the meaning of section 139(5). ii. Orissa Rural Housing Development Corporation Limited (2012) 343 ITR 316 (Orissa) that even for the proposition that even a revised return filed

The Pavagada Souharda Credit Co-Operative Limtied, Kolor vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Kolar

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

ITA 1960/BANG/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Apr 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian .S, JCIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 249(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 8o

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL

Aban Offshore Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Intl, Tax 1(1), Chennai

ITA 1240/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T.Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Hon'Bleआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 1240/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Aban Offshore Limited, 113, Janpriya Crest, Pantheon Road, Egmore, Chennai - 600 008. Pan: Aaaca 3012H (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. International Taxation 1(1), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca (Through Virtual Mode) : Ms. R. Anita, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19.02.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.04.2025 आदेश /O R Der Per S. R. Raghunatha: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Filed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai-16, Dated 13.03.2024 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Not Considering The Fact That The Order Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated 13.03.2024 Is Erroneous Both On Facts & In Law To The Extent The Order Is Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Appellant :-2-:

Section 115ASection 195(2)Section 250Section 44BSection 9(1)Section 9(1)(vi)Section 90

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'सी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'C' BENCH, CHENNAI श्री एबी टी. वर्की, न्यायिक

Shree Suigam Khodadhor Panjara Pole, Surat vs. ITO, Exemption Ward, Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1278/SRT/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: Shri Sapnesh Sheth, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 12A(1)(b)Section 143(1)Section 80Section 80G(5)

original return of income, the assessee had claimed deduction under section 10B of 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 losses

M/S. Bharat Beedi Works Private Limited, Mangaluru vs. Deputy Commisioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 2, Mangaluru

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for all the four A

ITA 645/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Respondent: Shri E. Shridhar, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

valid return and relying solely on it without appreciating that the said return cannot be regarded as a return eligible to fall under Section 139(5). 9.3. The Learned AO failed to appreciate that the alleged artificial income of Rs.20,29,07,399/- shown in the “Schedule BP - Computation ... valid return and relying solely on it without appreciating that the said return cannot be regarded as a return eligible to fall under Section 139(5). 11.2. The Learned AO failed to appreciate that the alleged artificial income of Rs.20,59,84,960/- shown in the “Schedule BP - Computation

M/S. Bharat Beedi Works Private Limited, Mangaluru vs. Deputy Commisioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 2, Mangaluru

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for all the four A

ITA 644/BANG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Respondent: Shri E. Shridhar, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

valid return and relying solely on it without appreciating that the said return cannot be regarded as a return eligible to fall under Section 139(5). 9.3. The Learned AO failed to appreciate that the alleged artificial income of Rs.20,29,07,399/- shown in the “Schedule BP - Computation ... valid return and relying solely on it without appreciating that the said return cannot be regarded as a return eligible to fall under Section 139(5). 11.2. The Learned AO failed to appreciate that the alleged artificial income of Rs.20,59,84,960/- shown in the “Schedule BP - Computation

M/S. Bharat Beedi Works Private Limited, Mangaluru vs. Deputy Commisioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 2, Mangaluru

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for all the four A

ITA 643/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Respondent: Shri E. Shridhar, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

valid return and relying solely on it without appreciating that the said return cannot be regarded as a return eligible to fall under Section 139(5). 9.3. The Learned AO failed to appreciate that the alleged artificial income of Rs.20,29,07,399/- shown in the “Schedule BP - Computation ... valid return and relying solely on it without appreciating that the said return cannot be regarded as a return eligible to fall under Section 139(5). 11.2. The Learned AO failed to appreciate that the alleged artificial income of Rs.20,59,84,960/- shown in the “Schedule BP - Computation

M/S. Bharat Beedi Works Private Limited, Mangaluru vs. Assistant Commisioner of Income Tax, Circle - 2(1), Mangaluru

ITA 642/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Respondent: Shri Chythanya .K, Sr
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153A

valid return and relying solely on it without appreciating that the said return cannot be regarded as a return eligible to fall under Section 139(5). 9. 3. The Learned AO failed to appreciate that the alleged artificial income of Rs.20,29,07,399/- shown in the “Schedule BP - Computation ... valid return and relying solely on it without appreciating that the said return cannot be regarded as a return eligible to fall under Section 139(5). 11. 2. The Learned AO failed to appreciate that the alleged artificial income of Rs.20,59,84,960/- shown in the “Schedule BP - Computation

Indira Veluri, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(2)(3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 2513/BANG/2024[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Apr 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Sri Pavan Kumar, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Ganesh R Gale, Standing counsel for department
Section 250Section 253(5)

confirmed the Order of AO. The CIT(A) held that the Assessee has not filed Form 67 before the time allowed under section 139(5) of the Act, and therefore Form 67 is nonest in law. The CIT(A) also held that provisions of Rule 128 are mandatory in nature

The Vijay N Dharamshi HUF, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 20(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 969/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.969/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2022-23) The Vijay N Dharamshi V/S. Income Tax Officer Huf बिधम Ward 20(3)(1), Mumbai 81St Floor, Pramod Income Tax Office, Piramal Prashad, R A Kidwai Road Chamber, Lalbaug, Mumbai Wadala, Mumbai 400031 400012 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aachv3818B Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी

For Appellant: Shri. Ashok SharmaFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik (SR DR)
Section 115Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 250

filed Form 10IE on 03/08/2022. As the original return was filed on time, the revised return was accepted as per the provision of section 139(5) of the Act and taken up for processing u/s.143(1) of the Act. In the revised return the appellant did not claim any deduction

Pukhraj Singh Gujral, Chandigarh vs. CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 637/CHANDI/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Apr 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Final Hearing

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Monga, C.A (Virtual)For Respondent: Dr Ranjeet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 90

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCHES, “SMC” CHANDIGARH HEARING THROUGH: HYBRID MODE BEFORE: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Ajay Bakliwal, Kota vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Kota

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1279/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Sh. Rajendra Sisodia, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 132(1)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 154Section 270A

filing a revised return pursuant to filing of return in response to notice under section 153A of the Act and the provisions of section 139(5) are equally applicable in case of return filed pursuant to notice under section 153A of the Act. 8 Ajay Bakliwal vs. ACIT 5 ... assessee and, therefore, the revised return filed by him correcting the said wrong statement was valid in accordance with the provisions of section 139(5). The Supreme Court in the plethora of cases has held that book entries are not decisive in determination of taxability nor otherwise of a transaction

Gujarat State Electricity Corporation Ltd, Vadodara vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 572/AHD/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.572/Ahd/2020 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2015-16 Gujarat State Electricity The Pr.Cit-1 Corporation Ltd. बनाम/ Vadodara – 390 015 Sardar Patel Vidhyut Bhavan V/S. Race Course Circle Vadodara – 390 007 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaacg 6864 F अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Manish J. Shah & Shri Jimi Patel, Ars Revenue By : Shri A.P. Singh, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02/04/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/04/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Manish J. Shah &For Respondent: Shri A.P. Singh, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

along with questionnaires were issued on 21.09.2016 and 17.07.2017. 2.2. In the interim, the assessee filed a revised return of income under section 139(5) of the Act on 11.01.2017, declaring again NIL total income, but now claiming set-off of brought forward depreciation of Rs.1 ... passed without issuance of a fresh notice under section 143(2) of the Act subsequent to the filing of a revised return under section 139(5) of the Act on 11.01.2017. It is the case of the assessee Gujarat State Electricity Corporation Ltd. vs. Pr.CIT-1 Asst. Year

Bhupendra Bora, Ghaziabad vs. DCIT, Dehradun

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 230/DDN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun02 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara(Through Video Conferencing) Bhupendra Bora, Vs. Dcit, Flat No. S4, Plot No. 618A, Circle-1(1)(1), Sector-1, Vaishali, Dehradun Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Ajkpb5486A Assessee By : None Revenue By: Shri A. S. Rana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 02/04/2025

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri A. S. Rana, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 192Section 90

confirmed the Order of AO. The CIT(A) held that the Assessee has not filed Form 67 before the time allowed under section 139(5) of the Act, and Bhupendra Bora therefore Form 67 is non-est in law. The CIT(A) also held that provisions of rule

ACIT, Range-I, Lucknow vs. M/S Apco Infratech Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow

ITA 454/LKW/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow02 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80I

claim an expenditure that was not originally claimed in the ITR. The Income Tax Act, 1961, particularly Section 139 (filing of returns) and Section 139(5) (revised return), provides the framework for rectifying mistakes in returns, but only within the specified time limit (typically within one year from ... itself and cannot be allowed later without proper filing. Revised Return: Limited to Correcting Mistakes or Omissions A revised return under Section 139(5) is allowed to correct mistakes or omissions in the original return, but it cannot be used to introduce new claims that were not initially included

ACIT, Range-I, Lucknow vs. M/S Apco Infratech Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow

ITA 453/LKW/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow02 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80I

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH 'A', LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUBHASH

M/S. Apco Infratech Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow vs. ACIT-I, Lucknow

In the result, appeals vide I

ITA 357/LKW/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow02 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80I

claim an expenditure that was not originally claimed in the ITR. The Income Tax Act, 1961, particularly Section 139 (filing of returns) and Section 139(5) (revised return), provides the framework for rectifying mistakes in returns, but only within the specified time limit (typically within one year from ... itself and cannot be allowed later without proper filing. Revised Return: Limited to Correcting Mistakes or Omissions A revised return under Section 139(5) is allowed to correct mistakes or omissions in the original return, but it cannot be used to introduce new claims that were not initially included

Sridharan Venkatanarayanan, Secunderabad vs. DCIT., Circle- 12(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 32/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.32/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Sri Sridharan Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Venkatanarayanan Income Tax, Circle 12(1) Secunderabad Hyderabad Pan:Bgaps6316N (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: C.A V. Balaji राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 24/03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 27/03/2025 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: C.A V. BalajiFor Respondent: : Dr. Sachin Kumar, DR
Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 91

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

Todi Industries Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer - 8(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 896/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 896/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2015-16) Todi Industries Pvt. Ltd. V/S. Ito-8(3)(2), Mumbai 1St Floor, Todi Estate, Sun बिधम Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Mill Compound, Lower Road, Maharashtra- Parel (W), Maharashtra- 400020 400013 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaact4620Q Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh TharFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi
Section 115JSection 234Section 234BSection 250Section 32Section 37Section 37(1)Section 72Section 80G

that the assessee can file revised return as many number of times so long as it is within the limitation period prescribed under section 139(5) of the Act. In this regard the Appellant Assessee places reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Bangalore Tribunal in the case of ACIT

M/S Punjab & Maharastra Co-Op. Bank Ltd (Now Amalgamated With M/S Unity Small Finance Bank Ltd ), Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2172/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Joshi and Ms. Dinkle Haria, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Mr. R. A. Dhyani, CIT DR
Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 9(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT