← All Phrases

“Section 139(3)”

Section References (mined)Section 139Section 139(3)81 judgments

COROMANDEL INTERNATIONAL LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 738/HYD/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Mar 2026AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A. No.738/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year:2015-16) Coromandel International Vs. Dcit, Limited, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aaacc7852K (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) करदाताका""त"न"ध"व/ : Shri Sp Chidambaram, Advocate Assessee Represented By राज"वका""त"न"ध"व/ : Ms. U. Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr Department Represented By सुनवाईसमा"तहोनेक""त"थ/ : 02/03/2026 Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख/ : 18/03/2026 Date Of Pronouncement Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Coromandel International Limited (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 24/02/2025 For The Assessment Year (“A.Y.”) 2015-16. Page 1 Of 17 Coromandel International Limited Vs. Dcit 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 250Section 32Section 32(1)(ii)Section 35

Wipro Ltd. (supra) is concerned, the said decision relates to carry forward of loss without filing a return under section 139(1) r.w. section 139(3) of the Act. However, the present case relates to intra- Page 16 of 17 Coromandel International Limited Vs. DCIT year set-off of loss

DCIT, CIRCLE-3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. GLENMARK PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for Assessment Year 2016-17

ITA 3991/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neena Jeph, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 35Section 41(1)Section 801C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT

DCIT, CIRCLE-3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. GLENMARK PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for Assessment Year 2016-17

ITA 3971/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neena Jeph, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 35Section 41(1)Section 801C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT

ACIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI vs. CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LIMITED (FORMERLY FUTURE SOFT PRIVATE LIMITED), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 420/CHNY/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jan 2026AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.420/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2006-07 V. The Acit, Capgemini Technology Corporate Circle-1(1), Services India Ltd., Block 3, ‘C’ Wing, 4Th Floor, Chennai. Capgemini Knowledge Park, Airoli Knowledge Park, Thane Belapur Road, Navi Mumbai- 400 708. [Pan: Aaacf 0482 E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.S.P. ChidambaramFor Respondent: Ms.E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 10ASection 10A(2)Section 10A(5)Section 143(1)

subsequently would not help the assessee. In the present case, the assessee filed its original return under section 139(1) and not under section 139(3). Therefore, the Revenue is right in submitting that the revised return filed by the assessee under section 139(5) can only substitute its original ... return under Section 139(1) and cannot transform it into a return under Section 139(3), in order to avail the benefit of carrying forward or set-off of any loss under Section 80 of the IT Act. The assessee can file a revised return in a case where there

PONNAPULA SULOCHANA, L/R OF LATE PONNAPULA SANJEEVA PARTHASARATHY,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT ,CENTRAL CIRCLE -3(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee for A

ITA 295/HYD/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

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

assessee. 6. The Ld. CIT(A), after considering the relevant submissions of the assessee, held that, as per the provisions of Section 139(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, there is no merit in the contention of the assessee because of restrictive provisions contained in Section ... losses to the subsequent year, once the return of income has not been filed on or before the due date provided under Section 139(3) of the Act. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) rejected the claim of the assessee. 7. Aggrieved by the order

PONAPULA SULOCHANA LR LATE P SANJEEVA PARTHASARATHY,HYDERABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF TAX ,CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee for A

ITA 294/HYD/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

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

assessee. 6. The Ld. CIT(A), after considering the relevant submissions of the assessee, held that, as per the provisions of Section 139(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, there is no merit in the contention of the assessee because of restrictive provisions contained in Section ... losses to the subsequent year, once the return of income has not been filed on or before the due date provided under Section 139(3) of the Act. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) rejected the claim of the assessee. 7. Aggrieved by the order

PRAKASH H. MUTHA,KALYAN vs. DCIT CENT. CIR. 1, THANE, THANE

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee for all the years stands partly allowed

ITA 5983/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025AY 2006-07
Section 127Section 145(3)Section 153A

{ "clean_text": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\n“D” BENCH, MUMBAI\nBEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI (JUDICIAL MEMBER)\nAND\nSMT

HEWLETT PACKARD FINANCIAL SERVICES (INDIA) P. LTD,BANGALORE vs. ASST CIT CIR 2(1)(2), BANGALURU

Accordingly, the ground is dismissed as not pressed

ITA 915/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm &\Nms Padmavathy S, Am\Ni.T.A. No. 915/Mum/2017\N(Assessment Year: 2011-12)\Nhewlett Packard Financial\Nservices (India) Pvt. Ltd.,\N24, Salarpuria Arena, Hosur Main\Nroad, Adugodi, Bangalore-560030.\Npan: Aabcc5967C\Nappellant)\Nassessee By\Nrevenue By\Ndate Of Hearing\Ndate Of Pronouncement\Nacit, Circle-2(1)(2),\Naayakar Bhavan,\Nvs. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020.\N:\N:\N:\N:\Nrespondent)\Nshri Percy Pardiwala &\Nmr. Ninad Patade, Ar\Nshri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr. Dr\N22.09.2025\N21.10.2025\Norder\Nper Padmavathy S, Am:\Nthis Appeal By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of\Nincome Tax (Appeals)-4, Mumbai [In Short 'Cit(A)'] Passed Under Section 250 Of\Nthe Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Dated 25.10.2016 For Assessment Years (Ay)\N2011-12. The Assessee Raised Grounds Pertaining To The Following Issues:\N(I) Disallowance Of Claim Of Depreciation On \"Hp Indigo Digital Press\Nprinter\" @ 60% - Ground No. 1.1 To 1.7\N(Ii) Treatment Of Ceased Liability As Income U/S 41 - Ground No. 2.1 To\N2.9\N(Iii) Disallowance Of Set Off Of Unabsorbed Depreciation - Ground\Nno. 3.1 To 3.9\N(Iv) Disallowance Of Provision For Tds Certificates & Addition To\Nbook Profits U/S.115Jb - Ground No.

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250Section 41

filed within the due dates specified under section 139. In this regard\nour attention was drawn to provisions of section 80 and section 139(3) of the Act\nwhich read as under\n139 - Return of income.\n(1) to (1C) ***\n(3) If any person who has sustained a loss

KOTHARI AGRITECH PVT. LTD,,SOLAPUR vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1, SOLAPUR

In the result, the both appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2455/PUN/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Sept 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 80Section 801ASection 80ISection 80J

subsequently would not help the assessee. In the present case, the assessee filed its original return under section 139(1) and not under section 139(3). Therefore, the Revenue is right in submitting that the revised return filed by the assessee under section 139(5) can only substitute its original ... return under Section 139(1) and cannot transform it into a return under Section 139(3), in order to avail the benefit of carrying forward or set-off of any loss under Section 80 of the IT Act. The assessee can file a revised return in a case where there

KOTHARI AGRITECH PRIVATE LIMITED,SOLAPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE-1, SOLAPUR

In the result, the both appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2392/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 80Section 801ASection 80ISection 80J

subsequently would not help the assessee. In the present case, the assessee filed its original return under section 139(1) and not under section 139(3). Therefore, the Revenue is right in submitting that the revised return filed by the assessee under section 139(5) can only substitute its original ... return under Section 139(1) and cannot transform it into a return under Section 139(3), in order to avail the benefit of carrying forward or set-off of any loss under Section 80 of the IT Act. The assessee can file a revised return in a case where there

MTITANIUM APARTMENTS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DY. CIT CIRCLE 1(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4694/MUM/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble () Assessment Year: 2024-2025 Mtitanium Apartments Pvt. Ltd., Dy. Cit-Circle 1(2)(1), 2Nd Floor, Shreeniwas House, Range 412, Aayakar Bhawan, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Fort, Vs. M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400 001. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aafcm 6810 Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Narayn AtalFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)

clear and unambiguous terms that (SC), wherein it has been held in clear and unambiguous terms that the requirement under the requirement under section 139(3) read with section 80 of the section 139(3) read with section 80 of the Act—namely, that a return of loss must ... section (3) of section 74 or sub-section (3) of section 74A. section (3) of section 74A. 7.3. As per provisions of Section 139(3) 7.3. As per provisions of Section 139(3) "(3) If any person who has sustained a loss in any previous ye "(3) If any person

AKRY ORGANICS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, we allow the claim of the assessee for deduction under section 80-IA(4) to the extent of ₹17,40,75,413/-, as made in the revised return of income

ITA 3014/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 115JSection 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 80

Akry Organics Pvt.Ltd., could not alter the character of the original return, nor could it retrospectively convert such return into one under section 139(3). 15. The distinction, however, between Wipro Limited and the present case is stark and material. The assessee before us has not sought to alter

ACIT ANAND CIRCLE, ANAND, ANAND vs. ELECON ENGINEERING COMPANY LTD, VALLABH VIDYANAGAR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2084/AHD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Us.

For Appellant: Smt. Kakoli Uttam Ghosh, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri M. K. Patel, Advocate
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 32(2)

carried forward and shall be treated as part of depreciation of the subsequent year and so on for the succeeding years. Neither section 139(3) nor section 32 lay down any pre-requisite of filing the return of income within prescribed time limit for carry forward of such unabsorbed depreciation ... then such unabsorbed depreciation allowance shall be carried forward and treated as part of depreciation of subsequent year and shown for succeeding years. Section 139(3) or section 32 does not require the condition of filing return of income within prescribed time limit for carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation

AKSHAT EDUCATION AND CHARITABLE TRUST,ANAND vs. THE ITO, WARD- EXEMPTION, VADODARA

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

ITA 457/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.457/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2020-2021 Akshat Education & Charitable The Income Tax Officer, Trust, बनाम Ward (Exemption), / 5/35, Gosainu Faliyu, Vadodara. V/S. Asodar Borsad Road, Asodar, Anand-388307. (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaeta2211K अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mehul Thakkar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 14/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 19/08/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: ] ] This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Coimbatore [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 25.01.2025, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”] For The Assessment Year 2020–21. The Impugned Order Arises Out Of The Akshat Education & Charitable Trust Vs. Ito(E) Assessment Year 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Thakkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)(b)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250

clear that the assessee will not get the benefit of carry forward & setting off of loss for the subsequent year as prescribed under section 139(3) of the Act. Considering the facts of the case, we set aside the order of the CIT(A). Accordingly, appeal of the assessee

AMMAPURAM RAJARAMAN RAJESH,TRICHY vs. DCIT, NCC-17(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 813/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.813/Chny/2025 िनधा:रण वष: /Assessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri H.N.Shree Harini, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)

return of income on or before the due date for the previous year in the form prescribed and duly verified by the assessee. Section 139(3) prescribes that if an assessee has sustained a loss in any previous year under the head 'profits and gains of business or profession ... Section 80 of the Act by a non obstante clause prohibits claim of carry forward of such losses unless determined under section 139(3) of the Act. Section 139(3) in turn, makes the mandate of the law clear that the loss return must be filed within time limit permissible

THERMO FISHER SCIENTIFIC INDIA P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 15(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

ITA 2458/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2025AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna, Shri Amol MahajanFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 32(1)

year 2008-09 the assessee filed its return of income under\nsection 139(4) of the Act and as per the provisions of section 139(3) of the\nAct, for carry forward of losses, the return should have been filed as per the\nprovisions of section 139 ... case(supra) it was held as\nunder:-\n\"The above provision contemplates determination of loss in pursuance of the\nreturn filed under section 139(3) of the Income-tax Act which are to be carried\nforward to be set off under section 72, 73, 74 or 74A. Section 139(3

SHANKAR LAL LUDHANI THROUGH LATA DEVI LUDHANI AS LEGAL HEIR,AJMER vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 406/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 115BSection 133ASection 147Section 148Section 271A

same was not claimed in the original return but claimed in revised return where the case attracts the provisions of Section 139(3) of the Act?" 2. So far as question no. [A] is concerned, by a separate order passed in case of this very assessee in Tax Appeal

K 113 KUGALUR PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL COOP CREDIT SOCIETY,KUGALUR,GOBI TK vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC, BANGALORE

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

ITA 99/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K

For Appellant: Ms. R. Reshma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ashwin D Gowda, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ (एस एम सी), "यायपीठ,चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ (SMC) BENCH, CHENNAI

PALAM RURAL CENTRE,TIRUPPUR vs. ACIT, EXEMPTIONS,, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the Stay Application filed by the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 1560/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1560/Chny/2025 & S.A.No.51Chny/2025 [Arising In Ita No.: 1560/Chny/2025] िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2018-19 Palam Rural Centre, The Asst. Commissioner Of Pethampalayam, Vs. Income Tax (Exemptions), Veerapandi S.O., Coimbatore. Tiruppur – 641 605. [Pan: Aaatp-2929-F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Edser Raj, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Sita Krishnamoorthy, J.C.I.T.

For Appellant: Shri. Edser Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sita Krishnamoorthy, J.C.I.T
Section 11Section 12ASection 139

clear that the assessee will not get the benefit of carry forward & setting off of loss for the subsequent year as prescribed under section 139(3)of the Act. Considering the facts of the case, we set aside the order of the CIT(A). Accordingly, appeal of the assessee ... clear that the assessee will not get the benefit of carry forward & setting off of loss for the subsequent year as prescribed under section 139(3) of the Act. Considering the facts of the case, we set aside the order of the CIT(A). Accordingly, appeal of the assessee

DCM SHRIRAM LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, DELHI

ITA 4328/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2020-21
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250Section 80GSection 80ISection 92C

{ "clean_text": "ITA Nos.927 & 2587/Del/2022,\n704/Del/2021, 4328 & 1495/Del/2024\nPage | 1 \nIN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL \nDELHI “I” BENCH: NEW

Showing 1–20 of 81 · Page 1 of 5