“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)

Shree Chandi Maa Mahakali Prachin Mandir Sidh Peeth Samiti, Sonipat vs. CPC, Banglore

ITA 4791/DEL/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Prakash Chand Yadav & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Bhopal Singh, Sr. D.R

Section 92C

ITA Nos.4859/Del/2009; ITA Nos.157 to 159, 4791, 4856 & 5358/Del/2010 & ITA No.2539/Del/2017 Gujarat Guardian Ltd., New Delhi IN THE INCOME TAX

Shri Gayatri Constructions, Nellore vs. DCIT., Circle-1, Nellore

In the result, the appeal of assessee for A

ITA 294/HYD/2024[AY 2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad07 Jan 2025

Bench: SHRI LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA (Accountant Member)

Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153A(1)(a)Section 153DSection 80

taxmann.com 223 (SC), wherein, in paragraph 9 of the judgment, it was clearly held that, the revised return filed by the assessee under Section 139(5) can only substitute the original return filed under Section 139(1) and cannot transform into a return under Section 139(3) in order ... supra), wherein at paragraph 9 of the order, it has been clearly held that, the revised return filed by the assessee under Section 139(5) can only substitute its original return filed under Section 139(1) and cannot transform it into a return under Section 139(3), in order

Gebbs Healthcare Solutions Private Limited, Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT (1)(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5528/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), MS. PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)

Section 10ASection 115JSection 139Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘G’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & MS. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Novateur Electrical and Digital Systems Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT - 10(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2767/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora and Nikhil Tiwari, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 153Section 32Section 43(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL

Rishi Khare, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-12(6), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 827/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.827/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2020-21) Rishi Khare Vs. Ito, Ward-12(6) Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Amjpk4465G] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri Pankaj Sancheti, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Shri R.Kumaran, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 18/12/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 30/12/2024 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 13.05.2024 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Ld.Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Pertaining To A.Y.2020-21. 2. At The Outset, It Is Observed That The Appeal Has Been Filed With A Delay Of 45 Days. The Assessee Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay & Submitted That The Assessee Was Not Informed Of The Issuance Of The Order Dated 13.05.2024 By The Ld.Cit(A) & He Was Under The Genuine Belief That The Matter

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj Sancheti, ARFor Respondent: : Shri R.Kumaran, DR

Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 90

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘B’ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri Manjunatha G., Accountant

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, (Exemptions), Circle-1, Bengaluru vs. Rashtrotthana Parishat, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed

ITA 1666/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore30 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017=18

For Appellant: Ms. Neera Malhotra CIT-D.RFor Respondent: Sri Prakash Shridhar Hegde, CA

Section 11Section 11(6)Section 250Section 270ASection 274

opinion that the assessee had option to rectify its mistake by filing revised return of income as per section 139(5) of the Act and during the proceedings, it was noticed Dcit(E), Circle-1, Bengaluru Page 6 of 24 by AO that the assessee has not filed it voluntarily ... present case as observed by the AO, the assessee had option to rectify its mistake by filing revised return of income as per section 139(5) of the Act and during the proceedings it was noticed by AO that assessee has not filed it voluntarily. More remarkably during the course

Daffodil Tower Private Limited, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 7(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1644/KOL/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Dec 2024AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 1644/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2011-2012 Daffodil Tower Pvt. Limited,……….…………Appellant 4B, Castle House, 5/1A, Hungerford Street, Circus Avenue, Kolkata-700017 [Pan:Aaccd8389C] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………….…………...Respondent Ward-7(1), Kolkata Appearances By: Shri Anil Kumar Kochar, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri L.N. Dash, Jcit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: December 10, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: December 27, 2024 O R D E R

Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 154

determining a refund to the tune of Rs.61,468/-. Subsequently the assessee company revised its return of income under section 139(5) of the Act on 20.09.2010 and claimed a loss of Rs.6,82,393/- and the same was processed under section 143(1) of the Act without allowing

Aditi Gupta, Ludhiana vs. DDIT, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 567/CHANDI/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Dec 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Satish Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 139(5)Section 234A

claimed while filing the return of income. Thereafter the assessee filed a revised return of income under section 139(5) declaring the total income at Rs. 22,08,120/- and determining the total tax liability at Rs. 4,98,933/- and TDS credit was reduced to Rs. 5

Fortrea Scientific Private Limited, Pune vs. ACIT, Mumbai

ITA 5701/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Tiwari &For Respondent: Shri Paresh Deshpande

Section 10A

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

Fortrea Scientific Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle 11(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 5678/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Section 10A

Uttaranchal Rural Development Agency, Dehradun vs. ITO, Exemption Circle, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1532/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri M. Balaganeshuttaranchal Rural Development Vs. Ito, Agency, Exemption Circle, Panchayati Raj Bhawan, Ghaziabad Sahastrradhara Road, Dehradun, Uttarakhand (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaaju0214A Assessee By : Shri S. B. Gupta, Ca Revenue By: Shri N. G. Joseph Gangte, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 22/10/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 18/12/2024

For Appellant: Shri S. B. Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri N. G. Joseph Gangte, CIT DR

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 12A(1)(ba)Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(3)

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

Vipul Purshottamdas Thakkar, Vadodara vs. The Dy.CIT, Central Circle-2, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 784/AHD/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Manish J. Shah & Shri Rushin PatelFor Respondent: Shri B. P. Srivastava, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 154Section 54B

income, was admittedly filed beyond the due date of filing of return of income. Subsequently, the assessee filed a revised return under section 139(5) on March 30, 2014, claiming a deduction under section 54B amounting to Rs. 55,24,000/-. However, when the AO finalized the assessment under section ... stood at the relevant time provided that a belated return, though valid, could not be revised in terms of section 139(5) of the Act. Before us, the Counsel for the assessee has placed reliance on the case of Janak K. Kansara v. DCIT 116 TTJ 415 (Ahmedabad – ITAT), wherein

Patanakar Shivendra Nagojirao HUF, Kolhapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Kolhapur

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

ITA 1542/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Basavaraj Hiremath

Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68Section 69

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “B”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL

Kavita Gupta, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 34(5), New Delhi

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6243/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 139(4)Section 139(5)Section 143(3)

assessment year 2015- 16 on 25.02.2016 declaring total income of Rs.29,35,650/-. Thereafter, a revised return under Section 139(5) of the Act was filed on total income of Rs.6,04,520/- on 6.09.2016. None of these returns were accompanied by self-assessment tax and it was also

Shri Madvirashiv Shivogimandir Samsthe Shivogimandir, Bagalkot vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemptions), Ward-1, Kalaburagi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1402/BANG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Dec 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Sri Ashok A. Kulkarni, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, D.R

Section 11Section 12ASection 154Section 250

ITA No.1402/Bang/2024 Shri Madvirashiv Shivogimandir Samsthe, Bagalkot IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED

Hybrid Financial Services Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT 10(1)(1), Aaykar Bhavan Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3093/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri K. Chandramouli, CAFor Respondent: Shri P.D. Chougule, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL

Indus Towers Limited (Formerly Known As Bharti Infratel Ltd and As Successor in Interest of Erstwhile Indus Tower Ltd), Gurugram, Haryana vs. DCIT, Circle 12(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2762/DEL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarindus Towers Ltd (Formerly Vs. Dcit, Known As Bharti Infratel Ltd), Circle-12(1), 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, New Delhi Building No. 10, Tower A, Dlf Qe, So Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Acit, Vs. Indus Towers Ltd, 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, Central Circle-10, New Delhi Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Indus Towers Ltd (Formerly Vs. Dcit, Known As Bharti Infratel Ltd), Circle-12(1), 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, New Delhi Building No. 10, Tower A, Dlf Qe, So Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Assessee By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv Shri Rohit Jain, Adv Shri Deepesh Jain, Adv Ms. Shaurya Jain, Ca Revenue By: Shri Mukesh Kumar Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 12/09/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10/12/2024

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Kumar Jain, CIT DR

Section 115JSection 139(5)Section 142Section 143(3)Section 148

learned AO basis the reasoning that such return of income was filed beyond the time limit as specified under section 139(5) of the Act, which had already expired on 31-3-2013. Accordingly, the learned AO issued a reassessment notice under section 148 of the Act requiring the assessee