← All Phrases

“Section 139(3)”

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

The decision most relied on for Section 139(3) is CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (359 ITR 565), cited in 2,590 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 139(3)

CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory
359 ITR 565 · 2013 · High Court
2,590
citing judgments

A penalty notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) is invalid if it fails to specify whether the penalty proceedings are initiated for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. This non-specification vitiates the penalty proceedings.

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.

CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd.
320 ITR 561 · 2010 · Supreme Court
1,673
citing judgments

An Assessing Officer cannot initiate reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act based on a mere change of opinion. Reassessment is permissible only when there is fresh tangible material leading to the belief of income escapement, not merely a review of existing facts.

CIT v. Sinhgad Technical Education Society
397 ITR 344 · 2017 · Supreme Court
1,589
citing judgments

For assessments under Section 153C, a notice is legally unsustainable if there is no incriminating material correlated to the specific assessment years for which reassessment is sought.

Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT
143 Taxmann.com 178 · 2022 · Supreme Court
1,392
citing judgments

Employee contributions to provident fund and ESI deposited by an employer beyond the due dates prescribed under the respective special Acts are not allowable as a deduction under section 36(1)(va) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Such disallowance can be made during processing under section 143(1).

CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation
366 ITR 170 · 2014 · High Court
1,158
citing judgments

Employees' contributions to welfare funds, such as provident fund, are not allowable as a deduction under section 36(1)(va) if deposited beyond the due date prescribed under the respective welfare statutes, even by a single day. Such delayed deposits are not cured even if made before the income-tax return filing due date.

CIT v. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders
349 ITR 336 · 2012 · High Court
956
citing judgments

Appellate authorities can entertain fresh claims or revised computations of income made by an assessee, even if these were not submitted through a revised return of income.

CIT v. SSA’s Emerald Meadows
73 Taxmann.com 241 · 2016 · High Court
791
citing judgments

A penalty notice under section 271(1)(c) read with section 274 of the Income Tax Act is invalid if it fails to specify whether the penalty is for concealment of income or for furnishing incorrect particulars of income.

Judgments citing Section 139(3)

Shiva Speciality Yarns Ltd., Ludhiana vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-I, Ludhiana

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for

ITA 1049/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

For Appellant: Shri Navneet Sehgal, CA and Ms. Naina Gaba Sehgal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR
Section 139(1)Section 139(3)Section 143(2)Section 270ASection 80

allowable to the assessee because the return under Section 139(1) was not filed within the time limit provided in Section 139(3) of the Income Tax Act. The AO further observed that as per Section 80 of the Income Tax Act if return is not filed within the time ... limited provided in Section 139(3), then current loss will not be permissible to the assessee to carry forward for further years. Accordingly, he disallowed this loss. Apart from this A.Y.2018-19 3 loss, he disallowed an expenditure of Rs.3,80,353/-. This amount represent an expenditure incurred on payment

ACIT, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad vs. Hinduja National Power Corporation Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is allowed

ITA 235/HYD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.235/Hyd/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) The Assistant M/S. Hinduja National Power Commissioner Of Income Vs. Corporation Ltd. Tax, Circle 2(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aabch2426D अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri K. A. Sai Prasad, C.A. रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri B. Bala Krishna, Cit-Dr.

For Appellant: Shri K. A. Sai Prasad, C.AFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 32ASection 92C

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 40 Hinduja National Power Corporation Ltd. loss under Section 80 of the IT Act. The assessee can file a revised

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

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

The Yanam Co Operative Stores Limited, Yanam vs. Prinicipal Commissioner of Income Tax, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 360/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam13 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.360/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) The Yanam Cooperative Stores Limited V. Pr.Cit 3-2-058, Vishnalayam Street Aayakar Bhavan Dabagarden – 530020 Yanam – 533464 Visakhapatnam Puducherry Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aadft3518R] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 263

income within the due date specified under section 139(1) of the Act, the Ld.Pr.CIT has in accordance with the provisions of section 139(3) of the Act directed the Ld. AO Page No. 5 I.T.A.No.360/VIZ/2024 The Yanam Cooperative Stores Limited to carry forward loss

Akshaya Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1931/CHNY/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Dec 2024AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh –
Section 139(1)Section 139(3)Section 143(1)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी एबी टी. वक", "ाियक

Learning Universe LLP, New Delhi vs. DDIT, DDIT CPC Bangaluru

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

ITA 1828/PUN/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Dec 2024AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2023-24

For Appellant: Shri Abhinav Jain (through virtual)For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 34(4)

crossed the last date for filing its Return u/s 139 of the Act and hence the disallowance made by the CPC as per Section 139(3) of the Act on the ground of late filing of the return is non-existent, hence, is patently illegal

Ncgb Retrofit Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 11(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed, subject to the verification as mentioned

ITA 1511/KOL/2024[2023-2024]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Dec 2024AY 2023-2024

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2023-24 Ncgb Retrofit Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Circle-11(1), Kolkata 3A, St. George Terrace, Vs Aaykar Bhavan, P-7, Kolkata-700022, West Bengal Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaacn8752B Present For: Appellant By : Shri Anup Singh, Ar Respondent By : Shri Supriya Pal, Dr Date Of Hearing : 24.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.12.2024 O R D E R Per Rakesh Mishra: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of The Ld. Addl/Jcit(A)-12, Mumbai (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld. Addl/ Jt. Cit (A)” ) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For Ay 2023-24 Dated 22.05.2024, Which Has Been Passed Against The Intimation U/S 143(1) Of The Act Issued By The Cpc, Bengaluru.

For Appellant: Shri Anup Singh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Supriya Pal, DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 234BSection 250

specified which of the two returns of A.Ys. 2021-22 and 2022-23, were not filed within the due date as required under section 139(3) of the Act, so that the losses for those years could not be set off during the current year while we note that

Federation of Rajasthan Trade and Industry, Jaipur vs. ITO-Exemption Ward-2, Jaipur

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

ITA 217/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Pandya (Adv.) &For Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh (Addl.CIT) a
Section 127Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

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

Blue Star Building Material Pvt. Ltd., Uran Panvel vs. ACIT Circle Panvel, Panvel

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

ITA 1066/PUN/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Sept 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: MS.ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member)

Section 139(1)Section 250Section 32(2)Section 72Section 80

।आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ”ए” "ायपीठ पुणेम"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “A” :: PUNE BEFORE MS.ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL

Shree Pushkar Foundation, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemption)-Ward 2(30, Mumbai

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

ITA 2714/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2021-22 Shree Pushkar Foundation, Ito (Exemption) – Ward 2(3), 301/302, 3Rd Floor, Cumbala Hill Tele Exchange Atlanta Centre, Vs. (Mtnl), Peddar Rd, Tardeo, Near Udyog Bhavan, Mumbai-400026. Sonawala Road, Goregaon East, Mumbai-400063. Pan No. Aawts 2303 N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Sandip S. Nagar, &For Respondent: 24/07/2024
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

filed its original return the assessee. In the present case, the assessee filed its original return under section 139(1) and not under section 139(3). Therefore, the under section 139(1) and not under section 139(3). Therefore, the under section 139(1) and not under section 139(3 ... 139(1) and cannot transform it into a return under section 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 139(3), in order to avail the benefit of carrying forward

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

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

A.Raghuram, Valsarawakkam vs. DCIT Central Circle-1(2), Chennai

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

ITA 373/CHNY/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.373/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 A. Raghuram, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 20, 3/1A, West Kamakoti Nagar, Income Tax, Agastyar Street, Valasarawakkam, Central Circle 1(2), Chennai 600 087. Chennai. [Pan:Aanpa2155P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri V. Nandakumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 04.01.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.03.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Chennai, Dated 08.03.2023 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That A Search Under Section 132 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] Was Initiated & Conducted In This Assessee’S Case On 31.10.2013. The Assessee Filed The Return Of Income On 16.04.2015, Admitting Total Income Of ₹.2,03,67,310/-. The Case Was 2

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

assessment proceedings as well as appellate proceedings. It was further submission that the assessee has not filed return of loss as mandated under section 139(3) of the Act in the prescribed form for claiming the loss. Thus, it was pleaded that the ld. CIT(A) has rightly rejected ... rightly argued by the ld. DR, the assessee should have filed return of loss as mandated under section 139(3) of the Act in the prescribed format for claiming the loss, which was not done in this case. Thus, this argument of the ld. counsel stands rejected. 11. The alternative

Ashwani Talwar, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 7(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2868/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmaashwani Talwar, Vs. Ito, C/O. Advocate Deepak Ward-7(1), Kapoor, 59, Nehru New Delhi Apartments, Outer Ringh Road, Kalkaji, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaapt0920E

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR
Section 10BSection 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 74

ground that the same was not claimed in original return of income. Accordingly, by considering the provisions of section 80 read with section 139(3) of the Act, the ld AO ignored the claim of long term capital of Rs. 206.25 crores while framing the assessment. In our considered opinion

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -1(1), Guntur vs. Andhra Pradesh State Housing Corporation Limited, Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 217/VIZ/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Feb 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.217/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2008-09) Dy.Commissioner Of Vs. Andhra Pradesh State Income Tax Housing Corporation Ltd., Circle-1(1) Plot No.11 & 12, Nirman Guntur Bhavan, Near Apiic Colony Autonagar, Vijayawada [Pan : Aabca7206L] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri C.Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Satyasai Rath, CIT(DR)
Section 139(1)Section 139(3)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 40

Corporation Ltd.,Vijayawada Act for the A.Y.2008-09, the assessee is not eligible to carry forward the above loss as per the provisions of section 139(3) r.w.s.80 of the Act. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT

ACIT, CC - I (2), Chennai vs. M/S. Balaji Hotels & Enterprises Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 209/CHNY/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Feb 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri V. Nandakumar, CITFor Respondent: Shri D. Anand, Advocate
Section 139Section 139(5)Section 143(3)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ,चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी महावीर "सह, उपा"य

ACIT, CC - I (2), Chennai vs. M/S. Balaji Hotels & Enterprises Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 208/CHNY/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Feb 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri V. Nandakumar, CITFor Respondent: Shri D. Anand, Advocate
Section 139Section 139(5)Section 143(3)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ,चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी महावीर "सह, उपा"य

ACIT, CC - I (2), Chennai vs. M/S. Balaji Hotels & Enterprises Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 207/CHNY/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Feb 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri V. Nandakumar, CITFor Respondent: Shri D. Anand, Advocate
Section 139Section 139(5)Section 143(3)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ,चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी महावीर "सह, उपा"य

Landcraft Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 27, New Delhi

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

ITA 1062/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jan 2024AY 2013-14
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274Section 69A

Indian Income tax Act, 1922 or which you were required to furnish under section 139(1) or by a notice given under section 139(3)/148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, No. dated or have without reasonable cause failed to furnish-it within the time allowed and the manner

M/S. Sanya Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3259/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Aug 2023AY 2010-11
Section 139Section 139(3)Section 32

rejection of the claim of carry forward of un-absorbed depreciation of Rs.15,82,50,014/- by wrongly relying upon the provisions of section 139(3) of the Act, which claim of carry forward being covered under the provisions of section 32 (2) of the Act and not 139 (3 ... Firstly, erred in making the dis-allowance of the claim of carry forward of un-absorbed depreciation under in-applicable section 139 (3), while c/f of un-absorbed depreciation is covered u/s 32 (2) of the Act and is allowable. " Secondly, erred in making the dis-allowance of the claim

M/S. Sanya Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3208/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Aug 2023AY 2011-12
Section 139Section 139(3)Section 32

rejection of the claim of carry forward of un-absorbed depreciation of Rs.15,82,50,014/- by wrongly relying upon the provisions of section 139(3) of the Act, which claim of carry forward being covered under the provisions of section 32 (2) of the Act and not 139 (3 ... Firstly, erred in making the dis-allowance of the claim of carry forward of un-absorbed depreciation under in-applicable section 139 (3), while c/f of un-absorbed depreciation is covered u/s 32 (2) of the Act and is allowable. " Secondly, erred in making the dis-allowance of the claim