“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)

Ajoy Sharma, Jaipur vs. DCIT Central Circle-1, Jaipur

ITA 546/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya, Adv. &For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT

Section 139(4)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80C

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI

Ajoy Sharma, Jaipur vs. DCIT Central Circle-1, Jaipur

ITA 545/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya, Adv. &For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT

Section 139(4)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80C

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR डा० एस. सीतालक्ष्मी, न्यायिक

Ajoy Sharma, Jaipur vs. DCIT Central Circle-1, Jaipur

ITA 544/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya, Adv. &For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT

Section 139(4)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80C

Ajoy Sharma, Jaipur vs. DCIT Central Circle-1, Jaipur

The appeal of the appellant is partly allowed

ITA 543/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya, Adv. &For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT

Section 139(4)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80C

Jawaharlal Nehru Shekshanik and Samajik Sansthan, Jaipur vs. Exemption Ward 1, Jaipur

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

ITA 630/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehra, Add. CIT

Section 143(3)Section 250

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh

Western Outdoor Interactive Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Assessement Unit, Income Tax Department Asstt Comm. of Income Tax, Circle-16(1), Mumbai

ITA 2474/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna, Shri AmolFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Sharma, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 244ASection 270ASection 40

same is pending. 25. The ld. DR submitted that since the assessee has filed the revised return beyond the time limit specified under section 139(5) the AO has not considered the income declared in the revised return for the purpose of assessment. The ld. DR submitted the report from

Western Outdoor Interactive Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Asstt. Comm. of Income Tax, Circle-16(1), Mumbai

ITA 2461/MUM/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna, Shri AmolFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Sharma, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 244ASection 270ASection 40

Cosmo Speciality Chemicals Private Limited, Delhi vs. Asst Director of Income Tax, CPC Bengaluru

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

ITA 809/DEL/2024[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jul 2024AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Ay : 2021-22 M/S Cosmo Speciality Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(1), Chemcials Private Limited, Vs. Cr Building, New Delhi 1008, Dlf Tower-A, Jasola District Centre, Delhi – 110 025 (Pan: Aaicc6706G) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr. DR

Section 115ASection 115BSection 115JSection 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 250

case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in ignoring the established law that once the return of income was revised under section 139(5) of the Act by the appellant on 19.5.2021 it stepped into the shoes of the original return under section 139(1) of the Act, thereby substituting

Sheetal Saini, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 72(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4141/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Us, The Only Effective Issue To Be Decided In This Appeal Is As To Whether The Gains Received On Sale Of Listed Company Shares By The Assessee In The Sum Of Rs 50,49,950/- Is To Be Treated As Business Income Or Income From Other Sources In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Instant Case. 3. We Have Heard The Rival Submissions & Perused The Materials Available On Record. The Assessee Is An Individual & Had Filed Her Return Of Income For The Asst Year 2014-15 On 28.3.2015 Declaring Total Income Of Rs 6,76,086/-. During The Year Under Consideration, The Assessee Sold Shares Of Listed Company & Declared Capital Gains & Claimed Exemption U/S 10(38) Of The Act In The Return Of Income. The Assessee Thought It Fit To Revise Its Return Of Income By Treating The Gains Arising On Sale Of Shares As Business Income Instead Of Offering Capital Gains & Claim

Section 10(38)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 68

exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act. But since the time limit for filing revised return of income had expired in terms of section 139(5) of the Act, the assessee filed a revised computation offering the gains on sale of shares of Rs 50,49,950/- as income from

Shruti Ahuja, Haryana, India vs. ITO Ward 2, Rohtak

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed in limine as infructuous

ITA 2007/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jul 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gurpreet Singh, Sr.DR

Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 90

reported. Likewise, the claim of Foreign Tax Credit on such income was also not made. The assessee thereafter filed the revised return under Section 139(5) of the Act wherein the income generated and corresponding FTC of Rs.5,94,987/- was claimed. The AO-CPC issued intimation under Section

Ericsson India Global Services Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT Spl. Range 3, New Delhi

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

ITA 2368/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Vishal Kalra, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Vijay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR

Section 234BSection 90Section 92C

nature of modified return filed under section 92CD(1) in pursuance to conclusion of APA is different from revised return filed under section 139(5) of the Act. Further, ld. CIT(A) held that the date of filing revised return under section 139(5) of the Act cannot be extended

Hemant Joshi, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward 16(2)(1), Mumbai, Aayakar Bhavan

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2178/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: The Commissioner (Appeals} & Rs. 500 Before This Honorable Tribunal Because The Appellant Has Been Compelled To Pay Them For Dereliction Of Duty By The Additional/Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals} - 4, Delhi & The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cpc, Bengaluru. The Appellant Is Entitled To This Refund In Terms Of Sections 240 & 244A, Read With Section 254 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. Without Prejudice & In The Alternative, If Not Appeal Filing Fees, Then The Appellant May Be Awarded The Cost Of Rs. 1,500 Towards Filing Of This Appeal.

Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 244ASection 249Section 254

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘E‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Ketan Arvindbhai Patel, Sojitra vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Anand

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

ITA 269/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Kedar Vyas, A.RFor Respondent: Shri N.J. Vyas, Sr. D.R

Section 139(4)Section 139(5)Section 144Section 250

consideration which is against the principle of Natural Justice and such order should be set aside. 3. Order has overlooked legal provision of section 139(5) In the impugned order in para 4.4 the learned CIT (A) has put much emphases on not filling revised return for the concern assessment ... year 2016-2017. But in doing so learned CIT(A) has totally overlooked the provisions of Section 139(5) which governs the scheme of Revised Return. The original return was filed on I.T.A No. 269/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2016-17 Page No. 3 Ketan Arvindbhai Patel v. ITO 19/08/2017. In other words

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai vs. Astrotech Steels Private Limited, Chennai

The appeal stand dismissed in terms of our above order

ITA 1150/CHNY/2023[2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jul 2024

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1150/Chny/2023 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Dcit M/S Astrotech Steels Private Limited बनाम/ Corporate Circle-1(1) 19, Ii Floor, Right Wing, Ghatala Towers, Chennai. Avenue Road, Nungambakkam Vs. Chennai-34. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aakca-0128-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar (Jcit)- Ld. Sr. Dr " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri T. Vasudevan (Advocate) -Ld. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Final Hearing : 27-06-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-07-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT)- Ld. Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri T. Vasudevan (Advocate) -Ld. AR

Section 10ASection 143(1)Section 154

annexed a note to the computation of income clearly stating as above. However, thereafter the assessee filed the revised return of income under section 139(5) of the IT Act on 23-12- 2002 and filed a declaration under section 10B (8) which admittedly was after the due date ... literally construed, more particularly in a case of exemption sought by an assessee. 9. In such a situation, filing a revised return under section 139(5) of the IT Act claiming carrying forward of losses subsequently would not help the assessee. In the present case, the assessee filed its original

Tessolve Semiconductor Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

ITA 310/BANG/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jul 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. B. R. Sudheendra, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 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 therefore Form 67 is non-est in law. The CIT(A) also held that provisions of Rule 128 are mandatory

Asha Rani Pandya, Indore vs. CPC Bangalore, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 176/IND/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Jun 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniasha Rani Pandya Dcit/Acit-1(1) 389 1Ad- Scheme No.74C Indore Vijay Nagar, Vs. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aqqpp7081A Assessee By Ms. Shreya Jain & Shri Prakash Jain, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 27.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 28 .06.2024

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 90Section 91

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

Randheja Dudh Utpadak Sahakari Mandli Ltd., Gandhinagar vs. The ITO, Ward-3 Now Ward-1, Gandhinagar

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 649/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Guptaasstt. Year : 2017-18 Randheja Dudh Utpadak The Ito, Ward-3 Sahakari Mandli Ltd. Vs Now Ward-1 To-Randheja Gandhinagar. Tal: Gandhinagar Pin : 382 620 Pan : Aacar 5164 K (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri M.K. Patel, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Ketan Gajjar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 27/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short Referred To As Ld.Cit(A)] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 22.11.2021 Pertaining To Asst.Year 2017-18. 2. The Registry Has Notified That The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Barred By Limitation By 581 Days. In Order To Explain The Reasons For The Impugned Delay, The Ld.Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That The Cit(A)/Nfac Order Was Passed Against The Assessee On 22.11.2021. However, Due To Covid-19 Pandemic Limitation For Filing Appeal Before The Court Of Law Was Extended Till February, 2022. Therefore, After Expiry Of The Limitation For Filing Of The Appeal On Feb., 2022, The Assessee Was Required To File Appeal Within 60 Days Of The Same I.E. By April, 2022. But The Assessee Could File The Appeal On

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ketan Gajjar, Sr.DR

Section 250

return of income was filed by the assessee in terms of Section 139(1) or 139(4) or for that matter even Section 139(5) of the Act, i.e. no return of income was filed by the assessee either by the due date of filing of return of income

M/S. Arham Mitra Mandal, Bangalore vs. Income-Tax Officer(Exemptions)-Ward-1, Bangalore

ITA 1110/BANG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri. Narendra Kumar Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel for Department

Section 119Section 119(2)(b)Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "A" BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI WASEEM AHMED

Faisul Ramon Nagel, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, International Tax Ward 3(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, ITA No.1248/Mum/2024 is allowedfor statistical purpose

ITA 1248/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh VoraFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant, Addl. CIT DR

Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 154oSection 244ASection 250Section 90

granting relief of foreign tax credit for the reason that requisite Form 67 was filed along with revised return of income under Section 139(5) of the Act and not with the original return of income filed under Section 139(1) of the Act. 3. Should have directed to grant

Manav Malik, Noida vs. ACIT Circle 5(2)(2), Gautam Budh Nagar

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 2293/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2019-20 Manav Malik, Vs Acit, B-146, Sector-19, Circle 5(2)(2), Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh – 201 301. Uttar Pradesh. Pan: Apzpm1646L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms Kirti Bindal, Ca Revenue By : Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.06.2024

For Appellant: Ms Kirti Bindal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIT-DR

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