“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)

M/S H.P.State Forest Coprn. Ltd., Shimla vs. JCIT, S.R., Shimla

In the result, the present appeal of Appellant/Assessee is allowed and impugned order of Ld

ITA 281/CHANDI/2000[1991-92]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 Jun 2024AY 1991-92

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav& Shri Paresh M. Joshiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.280& 281/Chd/2000 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years : 1990-91& 1991-92 M/S H.P. State Forest Corp. Ltd. Vs The Jcit, Van Nigam Kasumpti Shimla Shimla "ायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aaach4036L अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रतीक"ओरसे/Assessee By: Shri Y.K. Sud, Ca राज"वक"ओरसे/ Revenue By : Sh.Sarabjeet Singh, Cit-Dr सुनवाईक"तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28.05.2024 उदघोषणाक"तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06.06.2024 Hybridhearing आदेश/Order Per Paresh M. Joshi, Jm: Both The Above Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee. Since The Issues Involved In Both The Above Appeals Are Common & Were Heard Together Therefore They Are Being Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Brevity. We Shall Take Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No. 280/Chd/2000 As A Lead Case.

For Appellant: Shri Y.K. Sud, CAFor Respondent: Sh.Sarabjeet Singh, CIT-DR

Section 139(9)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148Section 148(1)Section 151(2)Section 250Section 253

return of income for Assessment Years 1988-89, 89-90 and 1991-92 too were held to be invalid vide orders passed under section 139(9) in the respective Assessment Years. 11. Thereafter, the Assessee Corporation field Writ Petitions in the High Court of Himachal Pradesh for Assessment Years

M/S H.P.State Forest Coprn. Ltd., Shimla vs. JCIT, S.R., Shimla

In the result, the present appeal of Appellant/Assessee is allowed and impugned order of Ld

ITA 280/CHANDI/2000[1990-91]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 Jun 2024AY 1990-91

For Appellant: Shri Y.K. Sud, CAFor Respondent: Sh.Sarabjeet Singh, CIT-DR

Section 139(9)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148Section 148(1)Section 151(2)Section 250Section 253

Koonthali Kunjuvareed Johnson, Thrissur vs. The ITO Ward 2(2), Thrissur

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes, and his stay petition, dismissed

ITA 383/COCH/2023[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Cochin28 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Soundararajan K, Jm

For Appellant: Sh. Biju P.K., AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 139(9)Section 139DSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

income, which is, where unaccompanied thereby, deemed deficient, non- rectification of which defect leads to it being deemed as invalid in law (section 139(9) r/w Explanation thereto). It is the return of income which is based on the regular books of account, and not the other way round

Mahavir Kelavani Mandal, Antroli vs. Ward- Exemption, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 468/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member Assessment Year : 2016-17 Mahavir Kelavani Mandal, Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Antroli, Income-Tax, C/O. Mahavir Kelavani Mandal, Bangalore Nadiad, Gujarat – 387366 Pan: Aactm 6322 R अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sunil Talati, Ar Revenue By : Shri N.J. Vyas, Sr Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 14/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27/05/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar: Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17 Arises Out Of The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Bengaluru (Hereinafter Referred To As 'Cit(A)’) Dated 29.02.2024, In The Matter Of Intimation Issued U/S 143(1) Issued By Cpc, Bangalore On 01.03.2019. 2. Following Are The Grounds Of Appeal Before Us:_ “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Upholding The Disallowance Made In The Intimation Order Passed U/S 143(1) Of The It Act Which Was Passed Without Giving Any Opportunity Of Being Heard To Your Appellant. In The Said Intimation Order, The Claim Of Exemption U/S 11 Of The It Act Is Denied & A Demand Is Raised. Such Arbitrary Disallowance Of Exemption Is Prayed To Be Deleted. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Upheld The Disallowance Of Exemption U/S 11 Of The It Act In The Intimation Order Passed U/S 143(1) Of The It Act Making An Addition Of Rs. 40,67,000/- On Account Of Income Chargeable U/S 12(2) Of The Mahavir Kelavani Mandal Vs. Dcit Asst. Year : 2016-17 2

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Talati, ARFor Respondent: Shri N.J. Vyas, Sr DR

Section 11Section 12(2)Section 12ASection 139(9)Section 143(1)Section 250

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ, ‘SMC’, अहमदाबाद

Kathikode Charitable Trust, Thrissur vs. Income Tax Officer, Thrissur

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes, and it’s stay petitions dismissed as infructuous

ITA 948/COCH/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin10 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Shri Jojo, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR

Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountant Member and Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Judicial

Kathikode Charitable Trust, Thrissur vs. Income Tax Officer., Thrissur

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes, and it’s stay petitions dismissed as infructuous

ITA 947/COCH/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin10 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Shri Jojo, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR

Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountant Member and Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Judicial

East Coast Constructions & Industries Ltd., Chennai vs. Dc/ACIT Central Circle- 1(3), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 236/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT

Section 139(5)Section 139(9)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36Section 40Section 43B

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

East Coast Consturctions & Industries Ltd., Chennai vs. Dc/ACIT Cnetral Cricle- 1(3), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 235/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT

Section 139(5)Section 139(9)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36Section 40Section 43B

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

Amma Vayovrudha Sevasada Nam, Kesarapalli vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 241/VIZ/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam14 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble(Through Hybrid Hearing) आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.241/Viz/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-16) Amma Vayovrudha Sevasada Vs. Income Tax Officer Nam, Kesarapalli. (Exemptions), Pan: Aaata 4192 R Rajahmundry. (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri M. Madhusudan, Ar प्रत्यधर्थी की ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 06/03/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of : 14/03/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy:

For Appellant: Sri M. Madhusudan, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 11Section 12ASection 139(9)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 246ASection 5

आयकर अपीलीयअधिकरण, विशाखापटणम SMC पीठ, विशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM श्री दुव्िूरु आर एल रेड्डी

The Nehru Memorial Education Society, Kanhangad vs. ITO Exemptions, Kannur

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 159/COCH/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin07 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Dr. S. Seethalakshmithe Nehru Memorial The Income Tax Officer Education Society (Exemptions), Kannur Lakshmi Nivas Vs. Kanhangad - 671315 Kasaragod [Pan:Aabtt0633M] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Veeramani, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 10Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 2

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountant Member and Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, Judicial

Lic Mutual Fund Asset Management Limited, Opp Churchgate Station vs. CIT(A), North Block

In the result, ground No.3 of appeal is allowed

ITA 2824/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.2824/मुं/2023 (िन.व. 2013-14) Lic Mutual Fund Asset Management Ltd. 4Th Floor, Industrial Assurance Building, Charchgate, Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aaacj-1166-H ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Cit(A), North Block, North Block, New Delhi 110 001. ....."ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri Vijay Mehta "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr.A.R सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 11/12/2023 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 26/02/2024 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short ‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 22/06/2023, For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Assessee In Appeal Has Raised Three Grounds. The Gist Of Issues Raised In Appeal By The Assessee Is As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr.A.R

Section 115JSection 139(5)Section 139(9)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण मुंबई पीठ “ए ”,मुंबई "ी िवकास अव"थी,"ाियक सद" एवं "ी एस. "रफौर रहमान, लेखाकार सद" के सम

Aark Infosoft Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 681/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra R. Kambleिनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Vs. Aark Infosoft Private Limited, The Acit, 45, Shetrunjay, 2Nd Floor, Above Circle-1(1)(1), Central Bank Of India, Bhattha Ahmedabad Cross Road, Paldi, Ahmedabad Gujarat-380007 Pan : Aahca 9986 H अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Divyang Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Santosh Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.02.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21.02.2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta: Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)" For Short] Dated 27.07.2023 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act" For Short], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under:- “1. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Issuing A Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Act? 2. Whether On The Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Making Disallowance Of Employees' Contribution To Pf & Esic Of Rs.5,51,657/- U/S 36(1) (Va) Of The Act?

For Appellant: Shri Divyang Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Santosh Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 139(9)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 269SSection 36(1)Section 40Section 68

prescribed under the Act. 12. We have gone through the provisions of law in this regard as prescribed under the Act, more particularly Section 139(9) of the Act which deals with the defective returns and on going through the same, we find that the said section itself amply ... with his assessment proceedings. That, he does not have to wait for the removal of the defects to proceed with the regular assessment. Section 139(9) of the Act is reproduced hereunder for reference along with the proviso thereto:- 7 Aark Inforsoft Pvt Ltd Vs. ACIT AY : 2017-18 “139

Sugam Informatics Society Samiti, Bhopal vs. Income Tax Officer Exemption Ward, Bhopal

Appeal is allowed in terms mentioned above

ITA 429/IND/2023[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Indore09 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2015-16 Sugam Informatics Society Ito, Exemption Ward, Samiti, Bhopal बनाम/ M-76, Kotra Sultanabad, Vs. Bhopal (Appellant/Assessee) (Respondent/Revenue) Pan: Aadas 6270 J Assessee By Shri Manoj Fadnis, Ca & Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 07.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 09.02.2024

Section 10Section 139(4)Section 139(9)Section 143(1)Section 154

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, इंदौर "ायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO

M/S.Hdb Financial Services Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 177/AHD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 80J

Form 3CD report and verify whether the revised return filed by the assessee company on 29.03.2019 is valid return as per provisions of section 139(9) of the Act or not? The AO is also directed to take cognizance of CBDT's Circular bearing No. 14(XL-35) dated ... Form 3CD report and verify whether the revised return filed by the assessee company on 29.03.2019 is valid return as per provisions of section 139(9) of the Act or not? The AO `is also directed to take cognizance of CBDT’s Circular bearing No. 14(XL- 35) dated

Asian Tours and Travels, Secunderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-10(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1/HYD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2013-14 Asian Tours & Travels, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Secunderabad, Ward-10(1), 9-4-212/94, Opp To Hyderabad. Railway Station, Hyderabad. Telangana – 500003. Pan : Aakfa8752H. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mohd. Afzal, Advocate. Revenue By: Shri Rohit Mujumdar, Sr.Ar. Date Of Hearing: 22/01/2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 23/01/2024

For Appellant: Shri Mohd. Afzal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Mujumdar, Sr.AR

Section 139(9)Section 143(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “SMC”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2013-14

Adobe Systems Software Ireland Ltd, Ireland vs. ACIT, Circle 1(1)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

Appeal is allowed in terms indicate above

ITA 804/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Dec 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2016-17] Adobe Systems Software Ireland Vs Acit, Ltd., 406, Riverwalk, Citywest Circle-1(1)(1), Business Campus, Saggart, International Dublin 24, Ireland Taxation, Pan-Aahca7203M New Delhi. Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Ravi Sharma, Adv. & Ms. Shruti Khimta, Ar Respondent By Shri Vizay B.Vasanta, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 12.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22.12.2023 Order Per Kul Bharat, Jm : The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld.Acit, Circle-International Taxation 1(1)(1), Delhi Dated 24.01.2023 For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

Centralized Processing Center, Bangalore had treated the return of income filed by the Assessee for the year under consideration as invalid under section 139(9) of the Act since the gross receipts shown in Form 26AS for which credit of TDS credit had been claimed by the Assessee

Shailaja Lalit Kotian, Mumbai vs. Central Processing Centrem Income Tax Department, Bengaluru

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

ITA 2960/MUM/2023[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Dec 2023AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2960/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2022-23) Shailaja Lalit Kotian बिधम/ Central Processing B/25, 6Th Floor, Namaskar Center, Income Tax Vs. Maas Chs, Poonam Nagar, Department, Bengalure Mumbai-400093. Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Bandra (E) Room No.615, Mumbai-400051. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Agipk3192M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Jeetan Nagpal/Shri Sujit Kotian/Shri Ali Sayyed Revenue By: Shri S. N. Kabra (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 28/11/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 13/12/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/(Nfac), Delhi Dated 29.06.2023 For The Assessment Year 2022-23. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Of The Assessee Are As Under: - “1. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Appellate Order Dated 29.06.2023 [‘The Impugned Order’] Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [‘The Hon'Ble Cit(A)’] Is Based Upon Conjectures, Surmises & Assuming Incorrect Facts & Therefore, Is Bad In Law.

For Appellant: Shri Jeetan Nagpal/Shri SujitFor Respondent: Shri S. N. Kabra (Sr. AR)

Section 143(1)Section 199Section 234A

respective income schedules. Hence, the return of income filed is regarded as defective, as per clause (a) of the Explanation under section 139(9). Probable Resolution The correction of this defect has to be made by filing a corrected return and disclosing the complete receipts, as per Form 26AS. Alternatively

Maninder, Gurgaon vs. ITO Ward 2(4), Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 443/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. M.R. Sahu, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Atiq Ahmed, Sr.DR

Section 139(5)Section 139(9)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 22Section 30

petitioner/assessee declared a loss amounting to Rs. 3,85,73,772/-. On 6-2-2017, the petitioner/assessee was served with a notice under section 139(9). This notice stated that the ROI filed by the petitioner/assessee was defective and this regard made a reference to section 139(9 ... that the notice under section 139(5) and compliance thereto cannot be treated on par with the provisions of Section 139(9); that the return was processed under section 143(1) of the Act; 3 Maninder and that the notices are invalid and illegal as they were barred by limitation

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Amritsar vs. Sh. Jaimal Singh, L/H. Sh. Prem Chand, Tarn Taran

In the result, the appeal bearing ITA No

ITA 82/ASR/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar09 Nov 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 139(9)Section 147Section 250Section 250(6)Section 263

ground of AIR Information not being reflected in the return of Income, ignoring the clear position of the law that section 139(9) can only be used to rectify defects, if any in the return of income. 7. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in law and facts and circumstances

ACIT, Central Circle-2, Patna vs. Kumar Arunodaya, Patna

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed, the appeals of the revenue is dismissed and the Cross-objections of the assessee are also dismissed

ITA 98/PAT/2021[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Patna07 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(3)Section 23

assessee due to non declaration of the same in the return of income. The ld. A.R argued that by misconstruing the provisions of section 139(9) of the Act and 292B of the Act, the AO has treated the return of income as invalid which is wrong