← 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)

ACIT, Circle-2(2), International Taxation, New Delhi vs. Newspage Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1992/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Dec 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1992/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 बनाम Acit, Newspage Pvt. Ltd., Circle 2(2), Vs. C/O Accenture Solutions P. Ltd., International Taxation, Godrej & Boyce Complex, New Delhi. Lbs Marg, Vikhrali West, Mumbai, Maharashtra. Pan No.Aadcn2660H अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 139(5)Section 148Section 246

Income Tax Act, which claim is not allowable under any provisions of the Income Tax Act, including the provisions of section 139(5) of the Income Tax Act as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pr CIT-III Bangalore Vs Wipro

Pink City Arts and Crafts, Jaipur vs. ACIT Circle 7, Jaipur

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

ITA 428/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Harshit Agrawal(C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Chaudhary (Addl.CIT)
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

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

Maninder, Gurgaon vs. ITO Ward 2(4), Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 443/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. M.R. Sahu, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Atiq Ahmed, Sr.DR
Section 139(5)Section 139(9)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 22Section 30

took the stand that there was no revision of the original return filed on 14-10-2016, that the notice under section 139(5) and compliance thereto cannot be treated on par with the provisions of Section 139(9); that the return was processed under section

Bsc C&C Joint Venture, New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-61(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 2283/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 40Section 801A(4)(i)Section 80I

filed within the due date prescribed under section 139(1) and even the revised return has been filed within time allowed under section 139(5) of the Act. Both the returns are valid in the eye of law. The Ld. AR drew our attention to para

Mr. Sujeev Sanjeev Kharwadkar, Maharashtra vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-31(3), Bandra Kurla Complex

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed

ITA 2478/MUM/2023[AY 2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Nov 2023

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry (Jm)

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 139(5)

head ‘income from other sources’. 4. The Assessing Officer took the view that the assessee can file revised return of income under section 139(5) of the Act, only if he had filed original return of income within the date prescribed under section 139(1) of the Act. Since

Smt Sunitha Prem Victor, Trivandrum vs. ITO Ward 2(3), Trivandrum

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

ITA 1009/COCH/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dassunita Prem Victor The Income Tax Officer Tc 25/2813 Mathrubhumi Road Ward – 2(3) Vs. Vanchiyoor, Trivandrum 695035 Trivandrum [Pan:Akopv8566C] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Divya Ravindran, Advocate Revenue By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 11.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.10.2023 O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, Am This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 26.10.2022 By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi [Cit(A)],Partly Allowing Her Appeal Contesting Her Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’) Dated 27.12.2016 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Returned Her Income For The Relevant Year On 18.12.2014 At Rs.5,67,250, Claiming Deduction Under Section 54 Of The Act At Rs.91,05,096 In Respect Of Construction Of A Residential House During The Relevant Year Against The Capital Gain Arising To Her On Sale Of 3 Pieces Of Land Sold During March, 2013 To November, 2013. The Claim Was, Admitting Her Mistake Inasmuch As The Capital Asset/S Sold Was Not A Residential House, Requested By The Assessee Vide Letter Dated 29.11.2016 For Being Considered U/S. 54F Of The Act; She Not Owning Any Other Residential House On The Date Of Transfer/S. Earlier, On 25.11.2016, A Revised Statement Of Income Was Filed Claiming Exemption With Reference To The Total

For Appellant: Ms. Divya Ravindran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54F

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountant Member and Shri Manomohan Das, Judicial

Phool Chand, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-6(4), Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 513/JPR/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Oct 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Chaudhary (Addl. CIT)
Section 133(6)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 54

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U

Bal Sadhana Vidhyalaiya Sansthan, Gudha Gor Ji Jhunjhunu vs. ITO, Exemption WD-1, Jaipur

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

ITA 402/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT)
Section 10Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 154

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U

Neeta Garg, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 30(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 2337/DEL/2023[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2023AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Advocate
Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)

original return of income under section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) on 29.07.2019. Thereafter a revised return under section 139(5) of the Act was filed on 28.07.2020 declaring income of Rs.27,14,700/- including the income earned from outside India of Rs.27 ... original returns under section 139(1) as well as the revised return under section 139(5) of the Act were filed within the extended due date pursuant to the Notification brought out by the Government of India through Taxation & Other Laws (Relaxation of Certain Provisions) Ordinance, 2020 dated 31st March

Goa Minerals Private Limited, Vasco vs. ACIT, Circle - 2(1), Panaji

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

ITA 63/PAN/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji11 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.63/Pan/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Goa Minerals Private Limited, The Assistant P.B.No.14, Salgaocar House, V Commissioner Of Income Dr.F.L.Gomes Road, S Tax, Circle-2(1), Panaji, Vasco Da Gama, Goa. Goa – 403802 Pan: Aaacg 6716 C Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Veer Raghavan – Ar Revenue By Shri N. Shrikanth – Dr Date Of Hearing 09/10/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 11/10/2023

Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 251(1)

allowed to add to capital work in progress. 2. The learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the revised return under section 139(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [‘the Act’] could not be filed by the appellant as the limitation period as provided for the purpose

ACIT(OSD), Ward-22(1), New Delhi vs. S.S. Gas Lab Asia P. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, cross objection of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3246/DEL/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Oct 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmaacit(Osd), Vs. S. S. Gas Lab Asia P. Ltd, Ward-22(1), A-6/3, Jhilmil Industrial Area, New Delhi Shahdara, Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aakcs1928C Co No. 54/Del/2023 (In Ita No. 3246/Del/2019) (Assessment Year: 2008-09) Acit(Osd), Vs. S. S. Gas Lab Asia P. Ltd, Ward-22(1), A-6/3, Jhilmil Industrial Area, New Delhi Shahdara, Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aakcs1928C Assessee By : Shri Sanjay Kumar Bindal, Ca Revenue By: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 03/10/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 05/10/2023 O R D E R Per M. Balaganesh, A. M.: 1. The Appeal In Ita No. 3246/Del/2019 Filed By The Revenue & Co No. 54/Del/2023 387/Del/2021 Filed By The Assessee For Ay 2008-09, Arises Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, New Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As „Ld. Cit(A)‟, In Short] In Appeal No. 10208/16-17 Dated 08.02.2019 Against The Order Of Assessment Passed U/S 147/143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As „The Act‟) Dated 09.03.2016 By The Assessing Officer, Ito, Ward-22(1), New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As „Ld. Ao‟).

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Kumar Bindal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR
Section 10BSection 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Delhi Bench “G”: New Delhi Before Shri M. Balaganesh, Accountant Member and Shri Anubhav Sharma, Judicial

M/S. Atul Projects India P Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT- 9(1)(2) (Now Juridiction With Dc CC 2(4)), Mumbai

ITA 1940/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 153CSection 37(1)Section 43CSection 69CSection 80I

Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has claimed the deduction under section 80IB(10) in the revised return filed on 31/03/2016 under section 139(5) of the Act. The Assessing Officer held that as per the provisions of section 80AC, the deduction under section 80IB is admissible only where ... Ld.AR argued that the deduction cannot be denied on the ground that claim is made for the revised return of income filed under section 139(5). The Ld.AR also submitted that the case laws relied on by the revenue pertains to where the original return of income was not filed

M/S. Atul Projects India Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT- 9(1)(2), ( Now Juridiction With Dc CC-2(4), Mumbai

ITA 1880/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 153CSection 37(1)Section 43CSection 69CSection 80I

Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has claimed the deduction under section 80IB(10) in the revised return filed on 31/03/2016 under section 139(5) of the Act. The Assessing Officer held that as per the provisions of section 80AC, the deduction under section 80IB is admissible only where ... Ld.AR argued that the deduction cannot be denied on the ground that claim is made for the revised return of income filed under section 139(5). The Ld.AR also submitted that the case laws relied on by the revenue pertains to where the original return of income was not filed

M/S. Atul Projects India Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT- 9(1)(2), ( Now Juridiction With Dc CC-2(4), Mumbai

ITA 1879/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 153CSection 37(1)Section 43CSection 69CSection 80I

Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has claimed the deduction under section 80IB(10) in the revised return filed on 31/03/2016 under section 139(5) of the Act. The Assessing Officer held that as per the provisions of section 80AC, the deduction under section 80IB is admissible only where ... Ld.AR argued that the deduction cannot be denied on the ground that claim is made for the revised return of income filed under section 139(5). The Ld.AR also submitted that the case laws relied on by the revenue pertains to where the original return of income was not filed

M/S. Atul Projects India Pvt Ltd., Mimbai vs. DCIT- 9(1)(2), ( Now Juridiction With Dc CC-2(4), Mumbai

ITA 1877/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 153CSection 37(1)Section 43CSection 69CSection 80I

Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has claimed the deduction under section 80IB(10) in the revised return filed on 31/03/2016 under section 139(5) of the Act. The Assessing Officer held that as per the provisions of section 80AC, the deduction under section 80IB is admissible only where ... Ld.AR argued that the deduction cannot be denied on the ground that claim is made for the revised return of income filed under section 139(5). The Ld.AR also submitted that the case laws relied on by the revenue pertains to where the original return of income was not filed

M/S. Atul Projects India Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT- 9(1)(2), ( Now Juridiction With Dc CC-2(4), Mumbai

ITA 1876/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 153CSection 37(1)Section 43CSection 69CSection 80I

Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has claimed the deduction under section 80IB(10) in the revised return filed on 31/03/2016 under section 139(5) of the Act. The Assessing Officer held that as per the provisions of section 80AC, the deduction under section 80IB is admissible only where ... Ld.AR argued that the deduction cannot be denied on the ground that claim is made for the revised return of income filed under section 139(5). The Ld.AR also submitted that the case laws relied on by the revenue pertains to where the original return of income was not filed

ACIT Special Range-3, New Delhi vs. Delhi Tourism & Transportation Development Corporation Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, Appeal filed by the Department in ITA No

ITA 5922/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI N. K. BILLAIYA (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

Section 43B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’: NEW DELHI BEFORE, SHRI N. K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI

Addi. CIT Spl. Range-3, New Delhi vs. Delhi Tourism & Transportation Development Corporation Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, Appeal filed by the Department in ITA No

ITA 5920/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Sept 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI N. K. BILLAIYA (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

Section 43B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’: NEW DELHI BEFORE, SHRI N. K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI

Delhi Tourism & Transportation Development Corporation Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-10(1), New Delhi

In the result, Appeal filed by the Department in ITA No

ITA 5509/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Sept 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI N. K. BILLAIYA (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

Section 43B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’: NEW DELHI BEFORE, SHRI N. K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI

Delhi Tourism Transportation and Development Corporation Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, Special Range-3, New Delhi

In the result, Appeal filed by the Department in ITA No

ITA 5167/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI N. K. BILLAIYA (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

Section 43B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’: NEW DELHI BEFORE, SHRI N. K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI