“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)

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Robert Bosch Engineering & Business Solutions Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed as indicated above and the appeal filed by revenue stands dismissed

ITA 445/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 608/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Robert Bosch The Deputy Engineering & Business Commissioner Of Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, #123, Industrial Layout, Large Tax Payers Unit, Hosur Road, Koramangala, Circle 1, Bangalore – 560095. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaacr7108R Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 445/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 (By Revenue) : Shri Percy Padiwala, Sr. Assessee By Advocate : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Cit Revenue By Dr (Osd) Date Of Hearing : 20-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 02-02-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Cross Appeals Are Filed By Assessee As Well As Revenue Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 28.01.2016 By The Ld.Dcit, Ltu, Circle -1, Bangalore U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The Act For Assessment Year 2011-12. In Revenue’S Appeal, The Following Grounds Are Raised. “1. The Directions Of Drp Is Opposed To Law & Facts Of The Case.

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144CSection 14ASection 80J

Foreign Tax Credit claim considering the payment of additional German Income Tax as per provisions of section 90 of the Act read with section 139(5) Page 6 of 33 IT(TP)A Nos. 445 & 608/Bang/2016 of the Act and Article 23(2) of India-Germany Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement

Pradeep Lankapalli, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(3)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 560/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2022AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Smt. Rashmi .R, Advocate

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 90Section 90(2)

original return of income, and an updated Form 67 was filed again before the filing of revised return of income as per section 139(5) of the Act to claim the enhanced FTC. 4. The learned CIT(A) and the AO have erred in not granting credit to the Appellant

Maxval Technologies P. Ltd., Navi Mumbai vs. Asstt. CIT, Panvel Circle, Panvel

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1931/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya

Section 10Section 10ASection 10BSection 139(5)Section 1QSection 288

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” Bench, Mumbai Before Shri Shamim Yahya, Accountant Member I.T.A. No. 1931/Mum/2020 (Assessment Year

ITO, Bangalore vs. M/S Karnataka State Industrial Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 788/BANG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jan 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year :2009-10 Ito, Vs. M/S. Karnataka State Industrial Co-Operative Ward – 3(1), Bank Ltd., Bengaluru. No.11, Bull Temple Road, Basavanagudi, Bengaluru – 560 004. Pan : Aaaat 3503 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Pratibha, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sumeer Kumar Singh, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 28.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.01.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevanthis Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 07.02.2014 Of Cit(A)-Ii, Bengaluru, Relating To Assessment Year 2009-10. This Appeal Was Dismissed By This Tribunal By Order Dated 14.01.2016 On The Ground That The Tax Effect Involved In The Appeal Was Less Than Rs.10 Lakhs & By Following The Cbdt Circular No.21/2015 Laying Down The Monetary Limit For Filing The Appeals By The Department. The Revenue Filed Appeal Before Hon’Ble High Court In Ita No.502/2016 & The Hon’Ble High Court In Order Dated 27.01.2021 Held That The Tax Effect In The Appeal Of The Department Was More Than Rs.10 Lakhs & Therefore The Tribunal Should Decide The Appeal Of The Revenue On Merits. Page 2 Of 6

For Appellant: Smt. Pratibha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumeer Kumar Singh, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 36

case of the AO that the claim is inadmissible owing to the assessee not having filed the revised return of income under section 139(5) of the Act. Ground No.2 is therefore misconceived and deserves to be dismissed. In so far ground 3 raised by the Revenue is concerned

The Income Tax Officer (Exemptions) Ward-1, Mangalore vs. M/S Stella Maris Church, Udupi

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3272/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Capt. Pradeep Shoury Arya, D.RFor Respondent: N O N E

Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 12A

ITA No.3272/Bang/2018 M/s. Stella Maris Church, Udupi IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B’’BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Sir Shadi Lal Enterprises Ltd, New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 2333/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Nov 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Sh. Prashant Maharishi

Section 158A(1)Section 32Section 43B

1 ITA Nos. 3530 to 3534/Del/2017 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘C’ NEW DELHI BEFORE MS SUCHITRA

M/S. Sir Shadilal Enterprises Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1538/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Nov 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Sh. Prashant Maharishi

Section 158A(1)Section 32Section 43B

1 ITA Nos. 3530 to 3534/Del/2017 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘C’ NEW DELHI BEFORE MS SUCHITRA

B.L. Kashyap & Sons Ltd., New Delhi vs. Prcit, Central-2, New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2835/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Nov 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, Adv.; &For Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati

Section 143(3)Section 263

assessee had filed return of income on 29.11.2014 declaring loss of Rs.125,10,58,455/-. Thereafter assessee revised its return of income under Section 139(5) of the Act on 8.03.2016 declaring loss of Rs.125,10,58,455. The assessment was completed on 31.03.2016 by the Assessing Officer at returned

ITO, Ward-17(1), New Delhi vs. Momentum Technologies P.Ltd, New Delhi

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5803/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Nov 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Sh. Prashant Maharishii.T.A. No. 5803/Del/2017 (A.Y 2012-13) (Through Video Conferencing) Vs Momentum Technologies P. Ito Ward-17(1) Ltd. B-21, Moti Nagar, Room No. 323A, C. R. Building, New Delhi New Delhi Aaccm6467C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 131Section 68

return of income prior to issuance of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act which is within the prescribed time limit as per Section 139(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee revised its return of income on 12 February 2013 declaring wherein the income 8 which

United Leasing & Industries Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 27(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2763/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Oct 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Sanjay Garg(Through Video Conferencing) United Leasing & Vs. Ito Industrial Ltd. Ward – 27(1) D-41, South Extension, New Delhi Part-Ii, New Delhi-49 Pan : Aaacu 0323 M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Y. K. Sharma, C.A. Revenue By Dr. Maninder Kaur, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 23.09.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 01.10.2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am:

Section 143(3)Section 14A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. SANJAY

Rajesh Kumar Verma, Bhiwani vs. ITO Ward -2, Bhiwani

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3286/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya[Assessment Year: 2010-11]

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Kumar Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri R.K. Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 139(5)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 44ASection 80C

assessee is not clear whether the return filed in response to notice issued u/s 148 or in accordance with the provisions of section 139(5). The exceeded turnover shown in the return is just to cover the story of cash deposits. Therefore, after going through the facts and circumstances

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Ngenox Technologies Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5099/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Aug 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri K.N. Chary[Through Video Conferencing] Assessment Year: 2006-07

Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 153A(1)(a)Section 154Section 2

section 153A of the Act. Which empower the Assessing Officer to specify time limit to file return of Income and that provision of section 139(5) of the Act was not applicable to the fact of this case? 5. That the appellant craves leave to add, amend alter or forgo

Xerox India Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 3618/DEL/2017[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jul 2021AY 2003-04

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shashi Bhusan Shukla, CIT, DR

Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)Section 43BSection 92C

factually correct, she rejected the same on the ground that the assessee has not filed any revised return as per the provisions of section 139(5) of the IT Act. He submitted that the ld.CIT(A) while deciding the issue against the assessee has relied upon the decision ... fully justified in rejecting such claim made by the assessee otherwise than by filing a revised return as per the provisions of section 139(5) of the IT Act, 1961. 15. We have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer

Nkb Infrastructure (P) Ltd, Rewari vs. Pr. CIT, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 450/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jul 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing] Assessment Year: 2015-16

Section 143(3)Section 263

claim of reduced loss in revised return. The learned Counsel further submitted that revised return has been filed validly in terms of section 139(5) of the Act and once valid revised return is filed, it substitutes the original return of income and, therefore, the only return that ... basis adopted by the Learned PCIT is not sustainable. In support of the contention that if a revised return is filed under section 139(5) of the Act, the assessment can be completed only on the basis of the revised return and not otherwise, the Learned Counsel relied

Sunila Awasthi, New Delhi vs. Pr.CIT-12, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 496/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jul 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamblea N D Shri Prashant Maharishii.T.A. No. 496/Del/2021 (A.Y. 2015-16) (Through Video Conferencing) Ms. Sunila Awasthi, Principal Cit – 12, E–802, Uniworld City East, Vs. New Delhi. Sector : 30, Gurugram, Haryana. Pan : Aaepa9591J (Respondent) (Appellant) Assessee By : Shri Deepak Chopra, Adv.; & Shri Harpreet Singh Ajmani, Advocate; Department By : Shri H. K. Chaudhary [Cit] – Dr; Date Of Hearing 01.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 07.07.2021

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, Adv.; &For Respondent: Shri H. K. Chaudhary

Section 139(5)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

assessee was asked to reconcile the mis-match between the receipts shown in Income Tax return and 26AS. According to Pr. CIT, section 139(5) of the Act has been enacted when a bonafide mistake is discovered; assessee can revise her return of income. Thus, according to her, assessee ... know about the bonafide error in the original return of income. He referred to the provisions of the Act wherein according to Section 139(5) of the Act assessee could validly revise her return of income as found bona fide error in it. Therefore, his contention was that assessee revised

Modern Papers, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 34(3), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 3931/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jun 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Sh. S.S. Nagar, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Sohail Malik, Sr. DR

Section 139(5)

treat the Excise Refund as Capital Receipts and non-taxable. 3. The Assessing Officer, however, recorded that in view of the provisions of section 139(5) of the Income-tax Act (“the Act”), in the absence of any revised return, no claim of assessee could be considered

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Central Warehousing Corp., New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue, i

ITA 5784/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant, Accountantmember & Shri K.N. Chary[Through Video Conferencing]

Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 36

email. 6. The condensed Ground No. 1 of the appeal of the assessee relates to validity of revised return filed in terms of section 139(5) of the Act. 6.1 The brief facts qua the issue in dispute are that the assessee filed its original return of income for assessment ... income by speed post on 31/03/2008 and uploaded the said revised return electronically on 01/04/2008. As per the provisions of the Act, i.e. Section 139(5), an assessee can revise its return of income, within one year from the end of the relevant assessment year (i.e. 10 ITA Nos.3885/Del./2011

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Central Warehousing Corp., New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue, i

ITA 3440/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant, Accountantmember & Shri K.N. Chary[Through Video Conferencing]

Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 36

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Central Warehousing Corp., New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue, i

ITA 3439/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant, Accountantmember & Shri K.N. Chary[Through Video Conferencing]

Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 36

M/S. Central Warehousing Corporation, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue, i

ITA 2201/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant, Accountantmember & Shri K.N. Chary[Through Video Conferencing]

Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 36