← All Phrases

“Section 139(8)”

Section References (mined)Section 139Section 139(8)27 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 139(8) is Zile Singh v. State of Haryana (8 SCC 1), cited in 222 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 139(8)

Zile Singh v. State of Haryana
8 SCC 1 · 2004 · Reported
222
citing judgments

A statute or amendment can apply retrospectively even without an express provision, if such application is a necessary implication from the language used, especially for clarificatory amendments or those intended to cure an acknowledged evil for the community's benefit.

PCIT v. Wipro Ltd.
140 Taxmann.com 223 · 2022 · Supreme Court
192
citing judgments

Exemption provisions under Chapter III, such as Section 10B(8), must be interpreted strictly, and any claim for such exemptions must be made in the return of income. The principles governing Chapter III (incomes not forming part of total income) differ from those for Chapter VIA (deductions in computing total income).

CIT v. ITI Ltd.
313 ITR 1 · 2009 · Supreme Court
142
citing judgments

An employer is not statutorily obligated to collect evidence from employees regarding the actual utilization of amounts paid towards leave travel concession or conveyance allowance, unless specific requirements are mandated by law or a CBDT circular.

CIT v. Ramco International
332 ITR 306 · 2011 · High Court
69
citing judgments

Assessing Officers and appellate authorities must consider and grant correct deductions for fresh legal claims or revised computations made during assessment or appellate proceedings, subject to due verification.

Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. Ltd. v. CIT
160 ITR 961 · 1986 · Supreme Court
31
citing judgments

The levy of interest under the Income Tax Act is part of the assessment process and can be challenged in an appeal if the assessee disputes the chargeability of interest itself. However, claims for waiver or reduction of interest cannot be challenged in appeal and must be pursued through revisional jurisdiction.

Commissioner of Income-tax-8, Mumbai v. Ovira Logistics (P.) Ltd.
58 Taxmann.com 206 · 2015 · High Court
21
citing judgments

Section 43B of the Income Tax Act cannot be invoked if the issue is concluded against the revenue by a prior High Court decision. Such prior decision may preclude further substantial questions of law.

Delhi Tourism & TDC Ltd. v. CIT
285 ITR 114 · 2006 · High Court
21
citing judgments

An assessee cannot claim a deduction for an expenditure in a subsequent assessment year if it was a known expenditure in an earlier year and the assessee failed to provide for it or claim it in that earlier year.

CST v. Sai Publication Fund
4 SCC 57 · 2002 · High Court
21
citing judgments

An ancillary transaction does not amount to business if the main activity of a person is not business, unless an intention to the contrary is established. The determination of whether an activity constitutes 'business' is based on the facts and circumstances of each case, irrespective of profit motive.

Judgments citing Section 139(8)

Rupal Chemicals, Ratnagiri vs. ITO Ward 1, Ratnagiri

In the result Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2588/PUN/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.2588/Pun/2025 नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2021-2022 Vs Ito, Ward 1, Rupal Chemicals, D/13, Midc, Lote Ratnagiri Parashuram, Taluka Khed, District Ratnagiri-415722 Maharashtra Pan-Aabfr7940R Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ramkrishna LingsurFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh B Budruk-
Section 133(6)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 144B

only. It was also discovered during 133(6) proceedings by the AO that Mauli Corporation and Manasi enterprises has furnished updated returns under section 139(8) of the IT act only after issue of notice under section 142 (1) of the IT act. The assessing officer was of the view

Katrathal Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Limited, Katrathal vs. ITO Ward 1 Sikar, Sikar

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 1001/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Oct 2025AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 144BSection 147Section 147rSection 148Section 148ASection 151Section 234ASection 250

deduction due date prescribed claiming the reducing the time available to an assessee for making the claim. A reading of the provisions of section 139(8) and (9) clearly reveals that even under those provisions, the restrictions placed with regard to the accrual of interest on amounts assessed

Karnataka Vidyutshakti Mandali Naukarara Sahakara Sangha Niyamitha, Bhadravathi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Shimoga

In the result, both these appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1444/BANG/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Aug 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri C.R. Vasanth Kumar, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Ganesh R Ghale, D.R
Section 139(1)Section 148Section 80ASection 80A(5)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

Before parting with these cases, we must also address the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant/assessee relying on the provisions of section 139(8)/(9) and section 234A of the IT Act. A reading of the provisions of section 139(8) and (9) of the IT Act clearly

Karnataka Vidyutshakti Mandali Naukarara Sahakara Sangha Niyamitha, Bhadravathi vs. Income Tax Office, Ward-1 & Tps, Shimoga

In the result, both these appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1443/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri C.R. Vasanth Kumar, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Ganesh R Ghale, D.R
Section 139(1)Section 148Section 80ASection 80A(5)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

Before parting with these cases, we must also address the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant/assessee relying on the provisions of section 139(8)/(9) and section 234A of the IT Act. A reading of the provisions of section 139(8) and (9) of the IT Act clearly

Navanirman Multipurpose Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd, Belagavi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2, Belagavi

ITA 116/PAN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji18 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 116/Pan/2025 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Navanirman Multipurpose Co-Op. Credit Society Ltd., Laxmi Nagar, Hindalaga, Dist. Belagavi.-591108 Pan : Aacan0420G . . . . . . . Appellant V/S The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Belagavi. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Mr Pramod Vaidya [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Ms Rijjula Uniyal [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 07/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 18/08/2025 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; By Captioned Appeal The Assessee Impugns Din & Order 1074658686(1) Dt. 18/03/2025 Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. Nfac/Cit(A)’ Hereinafter] U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’ Hereinafter] Which In Turn Arisen Out Of Order Of Assessment Dt. 15/02/2024 Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Act By National Faceless E- Asstt Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. Ao’ Hereinafter] Anent To Assessment Year 2016-17 [‘Ay’ Hereinafter].

For Appellant: Mr Pramod Vaidya [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Ms Rijjula Uniyal [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 80A(5)Section 80P(2)

Before parting with these cases, we must also address the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant/assessee relying on the provisions of section 139(8)/(9) and section 234A of the IT Act. A reading ITAT-Panaji Page 7 of 10 Navanirman Multipurpose Co-op. Credit Society ... Nos.116/PAN/2025 AY: 2016-17 of the provisions of section 139(8) and (9) of the IT Act clearly reveals that even under those provisions, the restrictions placed with regard to the accrual of interest on amounts assessed on an assessee is with regard to the date of filing

Shree Piyushpani Sthapatya Sangrahalay Trust, Mumbai vs. ITO Exemption Ward 2(3), Mumbai

In the result, ground of appeal of

ITA 3428/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh

Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 139(8)Section 143(1)(a)Section 254(1)

year under consideration, the return of income under section 139(1) was not filed in time; however, the same was filed as per section 139(8) on 24.03.2023. Before filing return of income, the assessee filed / uploaded Form 10B. Non- filing return of income in time ... filing Form 10B is only for seeking benefit of section 11. The assessee has already filed return of income under section 139(8) and once, the legislature has allowed filing of return with levy of certain penalty, which the assessee has paid. Therefore, the assessee is eligible

Shree Piyushpani Sthapatya Sangrahalay Trust, Mumbai vs. Dy Director ITO Exemption Ward 2(3), Mumbai

In the result, ground of appeal of

ITA 3427/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh

Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 139(8)Section 143(1)(a)Section 254(1)

year under consideration, the return of income under section 139(1) was not filed in time; however, the same was filed as per section 139(8) on 24.03.2023. Before filing return of income, the assessee filed / uploaded Form 10B. Non- filing return of income in time ... filing Form 10B is only for seeking benefit of section 11. The assessee has already filed return of income under section 139(8) and once, the legislature has allowed filing of return with levy of certain penalty, which the assessee has paid. Therefore, the assessee is eligible

The Gasper Education Society, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 7(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 871/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Jun 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.871/Kol/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-2019) The Gasper Education Society Vs Ito Ward-7 (1), Kolkata 40A, Ajc Bose Road, Nonapukur Tram Depot, Kolkata-700017 Pan No. :Aaabt 0159 K (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Giridhar Dhelia, Advocate रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri P.N.Barnwal, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 25/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25/06/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per George Mathan, Jm : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 06.03.2025 Of The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Passed In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024- 25/1074097940(1) For The Assessment Year 2018-2019. 2. Shri Giridhar Dhelia, Ld. Advocate Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri P.N.Barnwal, Ld. Cit-Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. 3. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Return Filed By The Assessee Was Processed & The Assessment Came To Be Completed U/S.143(3) Of The Act, Wherein The Assessing Officer Has Denied The Assessee The Benefit Of Sections 11 & 12 Of The Act On The Ground That The Return Filed By The Assessee Was U/S.139(4) Of The Act. It Was The Submission That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Also Confirmed The Order Of The Assessing Officer. Ld.Ar Drew Our Attention To The Circular Issued By The Cbdt In F.No.173/193/2019-Ita-

For Appellant: Shri Giridhar Dhelia, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.N.Barnwal, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ba)Section 139Section 139(4)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT

Ajay Jaisinghani, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -5(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 972/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI. NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA (Accountant Member), MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora, Shri Pranay GandhiFor Respondent: DR. K. R. Subhash (CIT-DR)
Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 250Section 55(2)(aa)Section 55(2)(ac)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI. NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM

Chennithala Thripperumthura Service Co-Op Bank Limited, Chennithala vs. Income Tax Officer, Thiruvalla

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 814/COCH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessmentyear:2017-18 Chennithalathripperumthura Service Co-Op. Bank Limited Oripuramchennithala Mavelikara Vs. Alappuzha Ito Chennithala Thiruvalla Kerala 690 105 Pan No :Aaaac3524G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 44ASection 80P

Before parting with these cases, we must also address the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant/assessee relying on the provisions of Section 139(8)/(9) and Section 234A of the IT Act. A reading of the provisions of Section 139(8) and (9) of the IT Act clearly

Bhaniyawala Kisaan Sewa Sahkari Samiti Limited, Deharadun vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(2), Dehradun

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 12/DDN/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun27 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 234ASection 270A(10)(a)Section 271FSection 8Section 80ASection 80P

Before parting with these cases, we must also address the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant/assessee relying on the provisions of section 139(8)/(9) and section 234A of the IT Act. A reading of the provisions of section 139(8) and (9) of the IT Act clearly

Eramalloor Service Co-Perative Bank Ltds No.1175, Cherthala vs. ITO, Ward-1, Alappuzha

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 820/COCH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Sri.C.A.Jojo, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Sr.AR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 142(1)(i)Section 144Section 250Section 80A(5)Section 80P

Before parting with these cases, we must also address the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant/assessee relying on the provisions of section 139(8)/(9) and section 234A of the IT Act. A reading of the provisions of section 139(8) and (9) of the IT Act clearly

DCIT, Middletonton Row vs. Bishnupur Public Education Institute, Bishnupur

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

ITA 1021/KOL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Bishnupur Public Education Institute Dcit 10B, Middleton Row, 5 Th Floor, Gopeswarpalli, Bishnupur, Vs. Kolkata-700071, West Bengal Bankura-722122, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabtb4176D Assessee By : S/Shri S.M. Surana & Sunil Surana & Dipak Kumar, Ars Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Datta, Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.02.2025

For Appellant: S/Shri S.M. Surana &For Respondent: Shri Subhendu Datta, DR
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 13(9)Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM

Income Tax Officer, Vizianagaram vs. Vijayanagaram Wheat Products Private Limited, Kondakarakam

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 312/VIZ/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam06 Feb 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble

Section 115JSection 139(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

sae sei afte, feemaneua te, fexmarmeursy IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM “DIVISION” BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM (HYBRID HEARING) M Sarre

Kadavathur Service Co-Operativ Bank Ltd, Kadavathur vs. ACIT, Ward-2, Kannur

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

ITA 213/COCH/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Nov 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri.Arun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Senior AR
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 142(1)Section 148Section 80(5)Section 80ASection 80A(5)Section 80P

Before parting with these cases, we must also address the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant/assessee relying on the provisions of section 139(8)/(9) and section 234A of the IT Act. A reading of the provisions of section 139(8) and (9) of the IT Act clearly

M/S Gymkhana Club, Panchkula vs. ITO, W-3, Panchkula

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1305/CHANDI/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Oct 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A.D.Jain, Vice Prersident & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकर अपील सं./Ita No 1305/Chd/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S Gymkhana Club, Vs The Ito, Sector 6, Ward-3, Panchkula. Panchkula. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaaag0115B अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By: Shri S.K.Mukhi, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Jcit, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07.10.2024 उदघोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/10/2024 Physical Hearing आदेश/Order Per Vikram Singh Yadav,A.M.

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Mukhi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 234B

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ, च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, “A” CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI

Sri. Kalabhairaweshwara Multi-Purpose Co-Op Society Ltd., Chikkamagaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Chikkamagaluru

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1344/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathi. Sr Assessment Year : 2018-19 Sri Kalabhairaveshwara Multi-Purpose Co- Vs. Ito, Operative Society Ltd., Ward Officer, K. M. Road,Chikmagalur District Office Ward – 1, S. O. 577 101, Karnataka. Chikmagaluru. Pan : Aapas 3058 L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Mahesh R. Uppin, Advocate Revenue By : Ms. Neha Sahay, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 16.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.10.2024

For Appellant: Shri. Mahesh R. Uppin, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 139(1)Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 80ASection 80A(5)Section 80P

Before parting with these cases, we must also address the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant/assessee relying on the provisions of section 139(8)/(9) and section 234A of the IT Act. A reading of the provisions of section 139(8) and (9) of the IT Act clearly

Kalia Service Co-Op Bank, Belhangady vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1, Puttur

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

ITA 743/BANG/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 80Section 80ASection 80A(5)Section 80P

Before parting with these cases, we must also address the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant/assessee relying on the provisions of section 139(8)/(9) and section 234A of the IT Act. A reading of the provisions of section 139(8) and (9) of the IT Act clearly

Shri Mahudi Madhupuri Jain Nsm Bhojanshala & Prashadi Bhavan, Mahudi vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Exemption, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

ITA 184/AHD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Jun 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Aarsi Prasad, CIT- DRFor Respondent: Date of Hearing
Section 11Section 119(2)(b)Section 12A(1)(b)Section 12A(1)(ba)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA, ACCOUNTANT

Om Prakash Jakhotia, Telangna vs. ACIT, CC-26, New Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 971/DEL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT DR
Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 292C

Under section 246A of the Act, separate appeal is provided for the assessment made under section 144 of the Act. viii. As per section 139(8)(a) of the Act, interest payable is till the date of assessment and not till the date of filing of return. From the above