← All Phrases

“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
68
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
62
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
59
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
54
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
50
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)

Kumar Arunodaya, Patna vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax - 6, Patna [New – Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle – 2, 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 96/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

ACIT, Circle-4, 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 94/PAT/2020[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Patna07 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

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

DCIT, Circle-4, 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 89/PAT/2020[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Patna07 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

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

Kumar Arunosaya, Patna vs. A.O., Circle-6, 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 33/PAT/2020[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Patna07 Nov 2023AY 2013-14

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

Wholery Infrastructure Private Limited, Kota, Rajasthan vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Kota, Rajasthan

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

ITA 525/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 139(9)Section 154Section 154(1)(a)Section 44A

adequate opportunities, the Assessee has not rectified all the aforementioned defects noticed in the return of income. Accordingly, as per the provisions of Section 139(9) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the return of income for AY 2017-18 filed by the on 21.03.2018, vide Acknowledgement ... apparent on record in as much as there was no applicability of section 44AB in the case of Appellant thereby the invocation of section 139(9) on the ground applicability of section 44AB is mistake of law apparent on record. In this regard, the facts and circumstances of above case

Dushkal Go Sewa Samiti, Sumerpur vs. ITO (Exemption), Jodhpur

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

ITA 9/JODH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur06 Oct 2023AY 2017-18
Section 11Section 139(9)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154

fact that disallowance of expenditure were made without providing the opportunity for removing the defect as per provisions of explanation (e) to section 139(9) of the Income Tax Act. 4. Ld. CIT(A) also erred in law in by ignoring the fact that the assessee-trust could not upload

Dushkal Go Sewa Samiti, Sumerpur vs. ITO (Exemption), Jodhpur

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

ITA 5/JODH/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur06 Oct 2023AY 2018-19
Section 11Section 139(9)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154

fact that disallowance of expenditure were made without providing the opportunity for removing the defect as per provisions of explanation (e) to section 139(9) of the Income Tax Act. 4. Ld. CIT(A) also erred in law in by ignoring the fact that the assessee-trust could not upload

Ojin Bakers & Restaurant, Kozhikode vs. The ITO Ward 1(1), Kozhikode

In the result, ITA No. 181/Coch/2023 is allowed for statistical purposes, and ITA Nos

ITA 183/COCH/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Shri Manomohan Dasojin Bakes The Income Tax Officer 1/4780, A.B.C.D.E.G. Ward – 1(1), Kozhikode Dhana Plaza, West Nadakkavu Vs. Kozhikode 673011 [Pan:Abjfs8500K] (Appellant) (Respondent) Ojin Bakers, Medical College The Income Tax Officer 30/72/F, Kozhikode Medical Ward – 1(1), Kozhikode Vs. College, Kozhikode 673008 [Pan:Aacfo6978M] (Appellant) (Respondent) Ojin Bakes & Restaurant The Income Tax Officer 213761/F-5,G36, Happy Tower Ward – 1(1), Kozhikode Vattakkinar, Post Arts College Vs. Meenchanda, Kozhikode 673011 [Pan: Aabfo8886D] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri R. Krishnan, Ca Respondent By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 12.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.08.2023

For Appellant: Shri R. Krishnan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 271BSection 273BSection 44A

only that, the law requires the proof of filing the TAR to be furnished along with the return of income [Explanation (bb) below section 139(9)]. And to consider that the assessee, in 2014, nearly 20 years later, states of no mechanism available for filing the TAR other than along

Ojin Bakers, Medical College, Kozhikode vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Kozhikode

In the result, ITA No. 181/Coch/2023 is allowed for statistical purposes, and ITA Nos

ITA 182/COCH/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Shri Manomohan Dasojin Bakes The Income Tax Officer 1/4780, A.B.C.D.E.G. Ward – 1(1), Kozhikode Dhana Plaza, West Nadakkavu Vs. Kozhikode 673011 [Pan:Abjfs8500K] (Appellant) (Respondent) Ojin Bakers, Medical College The Income Tax Officer 30/72/F, Kozhikode Medical Ward – 1(1), Kozhikode Vs. College, Kozhikode 673008 [Pan:Aacfo6978M] (Appellant) (Respondent) Ojin Bakes & Restaurant The Income Tax Officer 213761/F-5,G36, Happy Tower Ward – 1(1), Kozhikode Vattakkinar, Post Arts College Vs. Meenchanda, Kozhikode 673011 [Pan: Aabfo8886D] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri R. Krishnan, Ca Respondent By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 12.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.08.2023

For Appellant: Shri R. Krishnan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 271BSection 273BSection 44A

only that, the law requires the proof of filing the TAR to be furnished along with the return of income [Explanation (bb) below section 139(9)]. And to consider that the assessee, in 2014, nearly 20 years later, states of no mechanism available for filing the TAR other than along

Ojin Bakers, Kozhikode vs. The ITO Ward 1(1), Kozhikode

In the result, ITA No. 181/Coch/2023 is allowed for statistical purposes, and ITA Nos

ITA 181/COCH/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Shri Manomohan Dasojin Bakes The Income Tax Officer 1/4780, A.B.C.D.E.G. Ward – 1(1), Kozhikode Dhana Plaza, West Nadakkavu Vs. Kozhikode 673011 [Pan:Abjfs8500K] (Appellant) (Respondent) Ojin Bakers, Medical College The Income Tax Officer 30/72/F, Kozhikode Medical Ward – 1(1), Kozhikode Vs. College, Kozhikode 673008 [Pan:Aacfo6978M] (Appellant) (Respondent) Ojin Bakes & Restaurant The Income Tax Officer 213761/F-5,G36, Happy Tower Ward – 1(1), Kozhikode Vattakkinar, Post Arts College Vs. Meenchanda, Kozhikode 673011 [Pan: Aabfo8886D] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri R. Krishnan, Ca Respondent By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 12.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.08.2023

For Appellant: Shri R. Krishnan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 271BSection 273BSection 44A

only that, the law requires the proof of filing the TAR to be furnished along with the return of income [Explanation (bb) below section 139(9)]. And to consider that the assessee, in 2014, nearly 20 years later, states of no mechanism available for filing the TAR other than along

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)

Private Limited vs. DCIT reported in (2020) 269 Taxman 440. 7. On the other hand, ld. CIT DR submitted that in terms of Section 139(9), if there is any defect in the return of income, then AO intimates the defect to the assessee and gives opportunity to rectify ... invalid return, then there is no requirement for issuance of any notice u/s. 143(2). She further, submitted that though the proviso to section 139(9) provides that if assessee rectifies the defect after the expiry of the said period of 15 days or further period granted

Patel Engineering Co Ltd Employees Gratuity Fund, Mumbai vs. DCIT CPC-Bangaluru, Bangaluru

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

ITA 1267/MUM/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Anuj KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Ms. Indira Adakil
Section 10(25)(iv)Section 139(9)Section 143(1)Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “SMC”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. KAVITHA

V K Patel Securities Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax-CPC, Mumbai

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

ITA 1009/MUM/2023[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2023AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Rahul Chaudhary: A.Y : 2019-20 V.K. Patel Securities Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Assistant Director Of Income 810A, 8Th Floor, P.J. Tower, Tax – Cpc, Bangalore. Dalal Street, Fort, (Respondent) Mumbai 400 001. Pan : Aaacv3587A (Appellant)

For Appellant: Shri Hiten VasantFor Respondent: Ms. Vranda U. Matkari
Section 139(9)Section 143(1)Section 246A(1)(a)Section 44A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY

Star India Pvt. Ltd. (Sucessor of Star Sports India Pvt. Ltd.- (Ssipl), Mumbai vs. ACIT 16 (1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed to the extent indicated above and Ground

ITA 657/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishim/S Star India Pvt. Ltd. A C I T (Successor Of Star Sports India -16(1) Pvt. Ltd.) Room No. 439, Star House, Urmi Estate Vs. Aayakar Bhavan 95, Ganpantrao Kadam Marg M.K. Road, Lower Parel (W) Mumbai 400020 Mumbai 400013 Pan – Aaacn1335Q Appellant Respondent Co No. 114/Mum/2021 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) A C I T -16(1) M/S Star India Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 439, Aayakar Bhavan (Successor Of Star Sports India M.K. Road, Mumbai 400020 Pvt. Ltd.) Vs. Star House, Urmi Estate 95, Ganpantrao Kadam Marg Lower Parel (W) Mumbai 400013 Cross Objector Appellant In Appeal Assessee By: Shri Porus Kaka, Sr Advocate Revenue By: Shri Biswanath Das –Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.06.2023 O R D E R Per: Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 01. Assessee Has Filed Appeal For Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15 Against The Assessment Order Passed By The Acit-16(1), Mumbai

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka, SR AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das –CIT-DR
Section 119Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

valid return. Further if the return filed by the assessee is found to be defective in any manner, the prescribed procedures under section 139(9) of the Act is laid down. He relied upon several judicial precedents that without following that procedure the return of income filed by the assessee ... provisions of section 240 of the Act and accordingly treating of the validly filed return as invalid return without following the procedure of section 139(9) of the Act with the sole 11 ITA 657/MUM/2019 & Co 114/M/2021 M/s Star India Pvt Ltd. intention of denying refund to the assessee

Swami Ganga Giri Janta Girls College, Raikot vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Chandigarh

In the result,the appeal of the assessee ITA No

ITA 87/ASR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

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

Section 10Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250(6)Section 263Section 43(1)

Income Tax Act, 1961, although the appellant had electronically filed the audit report in Form No. 10BB in response to notice section 139(9) on 19.04.2017 and also before the ld. Assessing Officer on 07.09.2018. 6 I.T.A. No. 87/Asr/2022, & ITA No. 715/Asr/2019 5. That the appellant craves to add, amend

Swami Ganga Giri Janta Girls College, Raikot vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemptions) Ward, Jalandhar

In the result,the appeal of the assessee ITA No

ITA 715/ASR/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

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

Section 10Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250(6)Section 263Section 43(1)

Income Tax Act, 1961, although the appellant had electronically filed the audit report in Form No. 10BB in response to notice section 139(9) on 19.04.2017 and also before the ld. Assessing Officer on 07.09.2018. 6 I.T.A. No. 87/Asr/2022, & ITA No. 715/Asr/2019 5. That the appellant craves to add, amend

Shri Swami Ganga Giri Janta Girls College, Raikoot vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (CPC), Bangalore

In the result,the appeal of the assessee ITA No

ITA 454/ASR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

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

Section 10Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250(6)Section 263Section 43(1)

Income Tax Act, 1961, although the appellant had electronically filed the audit report in Form No. 10BB in response to notice section 139(9) on 19.04.2017 and also before the ld. Assessing Officer on 07.09.2018. 6 I.T.A. No. 87/Asr/2022, & ITA No. 715/Asr/2019 5. That the appellant craves to add, amend

Shri Yashpal Nehra, Bathinda vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bathinda

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 713/ASR/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar19 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

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

Section 139Section 139(9)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 44A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR. BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3, Ferozepur vs. Measage Sukhbir Agro Energy Limited, Ferozepur

In the result, the appeal ITA No

ITA 406/ASR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 May 2023AY 2014-15

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

Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 139(9)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 249(4)Section 250(6)Section 32Section 32(1)

assessee could not be held as valid return. (iii) The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the provisions of Section 139(9) of the Act afforded an opportunity to the assessee to rectify specific defect in the return of income but not to file a revised return of income with ... some additional claim of deduction. (iv) The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the assessee could not travel outside provisions of Section 139(9) and clause (a) to (f) of the Explanation to said provision and substitute the return originally filed. (v) The CIT(A) erred in admitting appeal

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle - 3, Ferozepur vs. Measage Sukhbir Agro Energy Limited, Ferozepur

In the result, the appeal ITA No

ITA 405/ASR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 May 2023AY 2014-15

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

Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 139(9)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 249(4)Section 250(6)Section 32Section 32(1)

assessee could not be held as valid return. (iii) The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the provisions of Section 139(9) of the Act afforded an opportunity to the assessee to rectify specific defect in the return of income but not to file a revised return of income with ... some additional claim of deduction. (iv) The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the assessee could not travel outside provisions of Section 139(9) and clause (a) to (f) of the Explanation to said provision and substitute the return originally filed. (v) The CIT(A) erred in admitting appeal