“Section 139(9)”

Section References (mined)Section 139Section 139(9)193 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 139(9) is Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. v. DCIT (30 SOT 374), cited in 201 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 139(9)

Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. v. DCIT

30 SOT 374 · 2009 · ITAT

201

citing judgments

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) cannot expand the scope of an assessment or improve the Assessing Officer's case in a manner that usurps the revisional power of the Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act.

CIT v. Suresh Chandra Mittal

251 ITR 9 · 2001 · Supreme Court

179

citing judgments

A penalty under section 271(1)(c) for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income is not automatically leviable merely because a higher income is declared, even after a search or in a voluntarily revised return. The initial burden to prove concealment or inaccurate particulars lies with the Revenue.

DDIT v. Savvis Communication Corporation

69 Taxmann.com 106 · 2016 · ITAT

107

citing judgments

Payments for web hosting services, including data back-up, maintenance, security, and uninterrupted services, are not taxable as royalty under Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, as they do not constitute 'consideration for use of, or right to use, scientific equipment'.

CIT v. Merchant

280 CTR 381 · 2015 · High Court

citing judgments

The scope of Section 43B and Section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act are distinct, meaning they cannot be read together to determine an assessee's entitlement to a deduction for belatedly paid employee contributions.

42 Hertz Software India (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT

139 Taxmann.com 448 · 2022 · ITAT

citing judgments

The claim for Foreign Tax Credit cannot be denied solely due to a delay in filing Form-67, as the requirement for filing Form-67 under Rule 128(9) is considered directory and not mandatory. The provisions of a Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) prevail over the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Adobe Systems Inc. v. ADIT

203 Taxmann 554 · 2011 · High Court

citing judgments

A fixed place of business constitutes a Permanent Establishment (PE) under Article 5(1) of a Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement only if the premises are actually at the disposal of the foreign enterprise, thereby satisfying the crucial 'disposal test', and it is through this fixed place that the foreign enterprise carries on its business, wholly or partly.

CIT v. Mithilesh Kumari

92 ITR 9 · 1973 · High Court

citing judgments

Interest on borrowed capital used to acquire an asset, paid year after year until the date of sale, must be capitalized and included in the cost of acquisition for computing capital gains.

Dell International Services (P) Ltd. v. CIT Manu/APJ2002/

305 ITR 37 · 2008 · High Court

citing judgments

Retrospective amendments to Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, introducing Explanations 5 and 6 regarding royalty income, do not automatically apply to Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAAs) if the DTAAs themselves have not been correspondingly amended.

Judgments citing Section 139(9)

Pme Power Solutions India Ltd, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are allowed

ITA 249/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Dhanesta, Sr. DR

Section 139Section 139(9)Section 140ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 249(4)(a)Section 271(1)(c)Section 276C(2)

asked to remove the defect of filing the return without payment of self assessment tax, for which a defect notice in terms of section 139(9) of the Act was duly issued by the learned AO on 29.10.2015. The assessee sought time from the ld AO to make payment ... have been offered by the assessee in the return. Once the return is treated as defective and invalid in terms of section 139(9) of the Act, the only recourse legally available to the learned AO is to frame the assessment u/s 144 of the Act. Whereas, in the instant

Pme Power Solutions India Ltd, New Delhi vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are allowed

ITA 242/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Dhanesta, Sr. DR

Section 139Section 139(9)Section 140ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 249(4)(a)Section 271(1)(c)Section 276C(2)

Manish Manohardas Asrani, Mumbai vs. Int Tax Ward 1(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4134/MUM/2023[2019-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Oct 2024AY 2019-2000

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2019-2000

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram a/w Mr. Shashi Behkal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr. DR

Section 139(9)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “D”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN

Premilaben Hasmukhbhai Patel, Unjha vs. The DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru Present Jurisdiction the ITO, Ward-1, Patan

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 237/AHD/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Oct 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumarasstt.Year : 2022-23 Premilaben Hasmukhbhai Patel Dcit, Cpc Prp. Pramukh Enterprise Vs Bangalore At Present: 21, Ambica Society Ito, Ward-1, Patan. Opp: Umiya Mata Mandir Unjha 384 170 Pan : Cpdpp 4066 F (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri P.F. Jain, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ravindra, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09/10/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/10/2024 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश

For Respondent: Shri Ravindra, SR.DR

Section 139(9)Section 143(1)Section 194QSection 199(1)Section 250Section 292B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD ] ] BEFORE DR. BRR KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Asstt.Year : 2022-23 Premilaben Hasmukhbhai

Rajendra Shantaram Renose, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Office, NFAC Delhi, Mumbai

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

ITA 1933/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Oct 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sandeep Singh Karhailrajendra Shantaram Renose 204, Zahoor Palace, Sakivihar Road, Andheri East, Mumbai ……………. Appellant Pan: Aefpr2720F V/S Income Tax Officer, Ward-41(1)(4), Kautilya Building, G Block Bkc, Bandra, ……………. Respondent Mumbai - 400051

For Appellant: Shri Satish KadamFor Respondent: Shri. Rajneesh Yadav (Sr.DR)

Section 139(9)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 44A

Income from other sources and claimed a refund of Rs. 15,560. As per the assessee, vide notice issued under section 139(9) of the Act the assessee was asked to furnish the profit and loss account, which was not provided with the return of income. Accordingly, the assessee uploaded

M/S. Bandhan Bank Ltd. (Erstwhile Ghosh Finance Ltd), Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-5(1), Kol, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 465/KOL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Biswanath Paul, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Subhro Das, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 17(2)(vi)Section 192Section 250Section 37

claim regarding certain amount of income or deduction, as the purpose of revision of return of income is quite different. (b) Provisions of Section 139(9) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 also imply that in case of scrutiny assessment, no time limit regarding a claim by the assessee could ... prescribed. Under Section 139(9) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Assessing Officer may allow time for rectification of defects in the return of income before the assessment is made. When the Assessing Officer has power to grant time for rectification of defects in a return of income under

Chamanlal Shantaben Parekh & Rohini Suketu Parekh Public Charitable Trust, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-(1) (Exemption), Ahmedabad

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 445/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta

For Appellant: Shri Atul Pandey, Sr.DR

Section 11Section 143(1)Section 250

that in the intimation made under section 143(1) for Asst.Year 2015-16, initially the assessee had received a defect notice under section 139(9) of the Act relating to the return of income filed by the assessee, pointing out that the assessee has failed to mention its registration number ... ld.counsel for the assessee contended that the registration number was intimated to the Department in response to the notice under section 139(9) of the Act dated 16.11.016; that despite the assessee having cured the defect, the return was processed under section 143(1) without considering the response

Mape Advisory Group Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 5.2.1, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2191/MUM/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2024AY 2017-2018

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 154Section 244Section 244ASection 244A(1)Section 244A(2)

proviso under Rule 12(2) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. Hence, as per clause (a) of the explanation under section 139(9), the return filed is regarded as defective. Taxpayer has to e-file the Form No.29B, as specified in the proviso under Rule 12(2) of Income

Nalpad Hotels and Convention Centre, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Incomer Tax, Central Circle-2(3), Banglaore

ITA 1298/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Sri H. Guruswamy, ITP &For Respondent: Shri Kiran D., D.R

Section 139(9)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 250

ITA Nos.1297/Bang/2024 & SP 33/Bang/2024 Nalapad Properties, Bangalore ITA No.1298/Bang/2024 & SP 34/Bang/2024 Nalapad Hotels and Convention Centre, Bangalore IN THE INCOME

Nalapad Properties, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Incomer Tax, Central Circle-2(3), Bangalore

ITA 1297/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Sri H. Guruswamy, ITP &For Respondent: Shri Kiran D., D.R

Section 139(9)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 250Section 45

ITA Nos.1297/Bang/2024 & SP 33/Bang/2024 Nalapad Properties, Bangalore ITA No.1298/Bang/2024 & SP 34/Bang/2024 Nalapad Hotels and Convention Centre, Bangalore Page 2 of

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Nagpur vs. M/S. Gondwan A Engineers Ltd, Nagpur

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

ITA 420/NAG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur14 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya

Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 8Section 801ASection 801A(4)Section 80ASection 80I

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.M. ROY

Sri. Aravindan Vedhavaththiyar Singarachari, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(3)(1), Bangalore

ITA 666/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Anjala Sahu, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(1)Section 50C

defective as evident from the fact that the AO has neither issued any notice as per the mandate of section 139(9) of the Act, for treating a ROI as defective, nor launched any prosecution against the assessee in terms of provisions of section 276CC of the Act. Which provisions

Sri. Aravindan Vedhavaththiyar Singarachari, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(3)(1), Bangalore

ITA 665/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

Section 143(1)Section 50C

Arrow Electronics India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 618/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Aug 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Sri Padam Chand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R

Section 139(4)Section 139(9)Section 69C

basis of original return filed under section 139(4) without appreciating that these returns were communicated to be defective under section 139(9) of the Act. An assessment based on such invalid return is non est. 2.2 The learned CIT(A) has erred in concurring with the action ... accepting the rectified manual return during the assessment proceedings having regard to proyiso to section 139(9). 2.3 The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the contradictory action of the AU concluding that e rectified manual return does not exist while making additions based on figures mentioned in such manual

Gulab Grandsons Foundation, Kolkata vs. ITO, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 353/KOL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 139Section 139(9)Section 164(1)Section 164(3)Section 44A

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ “सी’’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH: KOLKATA "ी राजेश कुमार

Ram Chameli Chadha Vishwas Girls College Society, Ghaziabad vs. ACIT Circle Exemption, Ghaziabad

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

ITA 796/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi.

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ba)Section 139(1)Section 139(9)Section 143(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’: NEW DELHI BEFORE, SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHIR

Hcl Hong Kong Sar Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle 2(1)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

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

ITA 79/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi.

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ba)Section 139(1)Section 139(9)Section 143(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’: NEW DELHI BEFORE, SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHIR

Raja Chinda Durai, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 49(3), New Delhi

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

ITA 3249/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

Section 139(9)Section 143(2)Section 194DSection 44ASection 57

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’: NEW DELHI BEFORE, SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Raja Chinda Durai

M/S. Punyabhoomi Welfare Service Society, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 528/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Varis Isani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Anand Kumar, Sr. D.R

Section 139Section 143(1)Section 154Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “SMC” BENCH Before: Shri Ramit Kochar, Accountant Member Assessment Year 2018-19 Punyabhoomi Welfare

Sri Sai Educational Society, Mahabubnagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Mahabubnagar

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

ITA 101/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.101/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2018-19) Sri Sai Educational Society, Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ward-1, Mahbubnagar. Mahbubnagar, Telangana. Pan: Aafas6773C (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri Mohd. Afzal, Advocate रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Smt. Sheetal Sarin, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 04/06/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 10/06/2024 आदेश/Order Per Laliet Kumar, J.M. :- This Appeal Is Filed By Sri Sai Educational Society (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Addl/Jcit (A)-10 Mumbai (“Ld. Cit(A)”), Dated 04.01.2024 For The Ay 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds : “1. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of [Income Tax (Appeals) Is Against The Law, Weight Of Evidence & Probabilities Of Case. 2. The Learned Additional Commissioner Erred In Confirming The Intimation U/S 143(1) In Which The Gross Receipts Of Rs.4,27,15,832/- Are Treated As Total Income Of The Assessee. 3. The Learned Additional Commissioner Ought To Have Appreciated That The Assessee Filed Itr-7,Inadvertently & Offered The Total

For Appellant: Shri Mohd. Afzal, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Smt. Sheetal Sarin, DR

Section 12ASection 139Section 139(9)Section 143(1)

filed ITR-7, instead of filing ITR-5, therefore, the same is to be treated as an invalid return under the provisions of section 139(9) of the IT Act, in the absence of such an action the learned Additional Commissioner erred in confirming the intimation u/s 143(1),wherein