“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)

Shree Cement Limited, Beawar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Ajmer

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 152/JPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT

Section 115JSection 250Section 32(1)(ii)Section 80Section 80I

held that revised return can only substitute original return under section 139(1) and cannot transform it into loss return under section 139(3) for the purpose of availing the benefit of carry forward or set off of loss. (b) Issue before the Apex court was on non-compliance ... under section 139(1) which was not complied with and that the original return was filed under section 139(1) and not under section 139(3). Hence, revised return cannot be filed to claim carry forward of losses for the first time. Supreme Court itself at para9 of the order

M/S Ramsons Refractories Pvt . Ltd, Nagpur vs. Assistant Comissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 2(2), Nagpur

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 208/NAG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur03 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Maurya Pratap

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 139(3)Section 143(1)Section 153ASection 80

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण न्यायपीठ नागपूर में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR (Through Virtual Court) BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL

M.P.Re-Cycling Co. Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 488/MUM/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2023AY 2016-2017

Section 139(1)Section 139(9)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

filed on or before the due date which has been provided under Explanation (2) to Subsection (1) of 139 of the Act. Section 139(3) provides that, if any person who has sustained a loss in any previous year under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession ... return, as if it has been filed u/s. 139(9) and since this return is a belated return, therefore, in terms of Section 139(3), loss cannot be carried forward. Thus, AO has not treated the return as invalid, albeit, he has accepted the removal of the defect

Virender Gupta, New Delhi vs. DCIT CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1780/DEL/2020[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Manu Giri, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ramdhan Meena, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 139(3)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 80

passing rectification order under Section 154 of the Act, assessee went in appeal before the learned CIT (Appeals) who by referring to section 139(3) and section 80 upheld the rectification 3 Virender Gupta - AY: 2018-19 order under Section 154 passed by CPC, Bengaluru. Aggrieved, the assessee ... current year loss by the assessee is the same figure of Rs.30,15,712. Learned counsel submitted that on a wrong interpretation of section 139(3) and section 80, learned CIT(A) has disallowed the claim of carried forward of current year loss. Findings given by the learned

Rrpr Holding Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, Grounds No

ITA 4700/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jun 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, AdvFor Respondent: Shri T. Kipgen, CIT-DR

Section 139(3)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

reference of any transaction involving any capital gains or capital loss in the original return. The AO also noted that as per section 139(3), for entitlement of carry forward of losses arising in the current assessment year, the loss return has to be necessarily filed within the time allowed ... other hand strongly relied upon the assessment order and the first appellate order. The ld. CIT-DR submitted that the loss return under Section 139(3) must be necessarily filed within the due date prescribed under Section 139(1) of the Act to avoid the rigors of Section

Radhey Shyam Agarwal (Deceased) Through Legal Heir, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward 7(1), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 409/JPR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 May 2023AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Khandelwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 139Section 139(3)Section 35ASection 72Section 73Section 73ASection 74Section 74ASection 80

WARD 7(1), JAIPUR earned from specified business in the A.Y. 2018-19. He has erred further in holding that the amendment in Section 139(3) about allowing loss from specified business is applicable in the instant case also whereas the amendment was applicable in the instant case also whereas ... During the course of the appellate proceedings, the appellant claimed that the phrase "or sub-section (2) of section 73A" was inserted in section 139(3) through the Finance Act, 2016 w.e.f01-04-2016 and therefore, the loss return of AY 2013-14 is not covered by the provisions of section 139

Kings Infra Ventures Ltd, Thevara vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1 (2), Kochi

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 25/COCH/2017[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin24 Apr 2023AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Sandeep Gosainkings Infra Ventures Ltd. Asstt. Commissioner Of A-1, 1St Floor, Atria Apartment Income Tax, Opp. Gurudwara Temple Vs. Circle - 1(2) Perumanur Road Kochi Thevara, Kochi [Pan:Aaccv3411D] (Respondent) (Appellant) Appellant By: Shri Joseph Markose, Sr. Advocate Respondent By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R.

For Appellant: Shri Joseph Markose, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)

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

Gridco Limited, Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-1(1), Bhubaneswar

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

ITA 42/CTK/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack29 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: S/Shri George Mathan & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2014-15 Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Grid Corporation Of Vs. Dcit, Corporate Circle-1(1), Orissa Ltd. Janapath, Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No.Aabcg 5398 P (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : S/Shri Ved Jain/P.V.Rao, Ars Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Pr. Cit (Osd) Date Of Hearing : 29 /03/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 29 /03/2023 O R D E R

For Appellant: S/Shri Ved Jain/P.V.Rao, ARsFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, Pr. CIT (OSD)

Section 10BSection 10B(8)Section 139(1)Section 139(3)Section 139(5)Section 80

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

M/S. Gridco Limited, Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-1(1), Bhubaneswar

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

ITA 148/CTK/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack29 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

For Appellant: S/Shri Ved Jain/P.V.Rao, ARsFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, Pr. CIT (OSD)

Section 10BSection 10B(8)Section 139(1)Section 139(3)Section 139(5)Section 80

M/S.Roads and Bridges Development Corpn of Kerala Ltd, Ernakulam vs. The ACIT, Kochi

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

ITA 33/COCH/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Jan 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Ms. Remya S Menon, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr DR

Section 139(1)Section 139(3)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32(2)Section 72(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT

Jitf Urban Infrastructure Services Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-13(2), New Delhi

ITA 6632/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No.6632/Del/2018, A.Y. 2015-16 M/S. Jitf Urban Infrastructure Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Services Limited Tax 28, Shivaji Marg, West Delhi, Circle 13(2), Central Revenue P.O: Ramesh Nagar Building Room No. 316A 3Rd Floor, New Delhi- 110015 Pan : Aaccj4785G I.P.Estate, New Delhi-110002

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2

facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. (c) CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the provisions of section 139(3) are not impediment to the claim of appellant as original return was filed in time. On the facts and circumstances of the case ... claim independently out of operations of the assessee. It was also submitted the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that provisions of Section 139(3) of the Act have no bearing to the present facts and circumstances as the original return under section 139(1) was filed in time

DCIT, Circle-13(2), New Delhi vs. Jitf Urban Infrastructure Services Ltd, New Delhi

ITA 6423/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2023AY 2015-16

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2

Tikona Trust, Mumbai vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangaluru

In the result of the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1117/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.1117/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Tikona Trust बिधम/ Assistant Director Of 3A, 3Rd Floor Corpora, Lbs Marg Income Tax, Cpc Vs. Bhandup West, Cpc, Bangaluru, Mumbai-400078 Karnataka- 560500

For Appellant: Shri .Vimal PunamiyaFor Respondent: Shri. V.K. Chaturvedi, Sr AR

Section 139(1)Section 139(3)Section 234BSection 41Section 41(1)

eligible for carry forward and set-off of the business loss of the said assessment years as per the provisions of section 139(3) r.w.s 80 of the IT Act The claim of the assessee for set-off of such losses against the business income of the instant assessment year

Ajit Vasant Pai, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 741/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri H. Anil Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri K R Narayana, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(1)(a)Section 139(3)Section 139(5)Section 142Section 143(1)(a)Section 154

ACIT, [2005] 94 TTJ Visakha 284 held that the assessee was required to file return of income claiming loss in terms of section 139(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act] and that the provisions of section 139(5) are not applicable to a revised return where loss ... loss, there are two conditions:- (1) the return of income claiming the loss must be filed within the time limit prescribed under section 139(3) read with section 139(1) and; (2) the said loss must have been determined. 10. In the present case, the Assessing Officer has serious reservation

M/S. Thirumagal Alloys Pvt. Ltd., Dharmapuri vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Hosur

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3243/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2913/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 M/S. Thirumagal Alloys Pvt Ltd., Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of No. 5/95, Cmelbatchhapet, Income Tax, Salem. Sennimalai Gardens, Harur, Tamil Nadu 636 903. [Pan:Aabck1431D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3243/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 M/S. Thirumagal Alloys Pvt Ltd., Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 5/95, Cmelbatchhapet, Income Tax, Sennimalai Gardens, Harur, Circle I, Salem. Tamil Nadu 636 903. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M. Murali, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 21.09.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.10.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao,: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Salem, Dated 01.03.2018 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Murali, CIT

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

brought to tax. Moreover, the Assessing Officer has observed that the assessee has filed its return of income after due date prescribed under section 139(3) of the Act and hence loss claimed in the returns cannot be carry forward as per section 80 of the Act. 11. On appeal ... have heard the rival contentions. It is an admitted fact that the return of income was filed after due date prescribed under section 139(3) of the Act, thereby, the loss claimed in the return cannot be carry forwarded as per section 80 of the Act. Moreover, it is also

Thirumagal Alloys Pvt. Ltd., Harur vs. ACIT Circle 1, Hosur

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2913/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Murali, CIT

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

Brillpharma Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 414/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Ms. Ruchi TamhankarFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Bagchi, Sr. A.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 44A

No.414/Mum./2022 of loss is not permissible. In order to decide this issue, it is pertinent to analyse the provisions of section 139(3) of the Act, which reads as under: “(3) If any person who has sustained a loss in any previous year under the head "Profits and gains ... provisions of this Act shall apply as if it were a return under sub-section (1).” Thus, as per the provisions of section 139(3) of the Act, loss sustained by the assessee under the head “profits and gains of business or profession” or under the head “capital gains

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

loss of ₹ 1,82,31,067/- for the year under consideration, is within the due date provided under the Act. In terms of section 139(3) of the Act, loss claimed in the return of income can be allowed to carry forward, if the return is filed within the time ... shall not be carried forward under section 72 of the Act, if same is not determined in pursuance of the return filed under section 139(3) of the Act. So as far as carry forward of the loss of ₹ 1,82,31,067/- under regular provisions

Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi II vs. Medicare Investments Ltd

ITA - 840 / 2008HC Delhi20 Mar 2015

determined by him pursuant to an order of the Tribunal, it was not a loss determined in pursuance of a return filed under section 139(3) of the Act and, hence, the said assessed loss on Rs.6,27,81,805 shall not be allowed to be carried forward ... revised return, it was not a loss which could be carried forward keeping in view the provisions of section 80 read with section 139(3) of the Act. In sum and substance the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) approved of the reasoning set out in the order of the Assessing

CIT vs. Lokesh Garments Pvt Ltd

ITA - 479 / 2011HC Delhi05 Jul 2012

Section 131Section 142Section 1aSection 44A

appellant is not carrying on any business activity. Even otherwise, though the original return was filed within the time allowed under section 139(3) read with section 80 of the Act but the same could be declared as defective and invalid under section 139(9) of the Act by sheer ... proceedings. Thus by implication it can be concluded that the assessee failed to furnish the return in time as per the provisions of section 139(3) of the Act. Therefore, it is held that the assessee was not entitled to carry forward the loss to the subsequent year