“Section 139(2)”

Section References (mined)Section 139Section 139(2)39 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 139(2) is CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (320 ITR 561), cited in 1,673 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 139(2)

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. AIMIL Ltd.

321 ITR 508 · 2010 · High Court

1,629

citing judgments

Employee contributions to PF and ESIC, deposited beyond the due date under the respective Acts but within the due date for filing the income tax return under Section 139(1), are allowable deductions under Section 36(1)(va). Such disallowance cannot be made during processing under Section 143(1).

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.

Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan

263 ITR 706 · 2003 · Supreme Court

691

citing judgments

A citizen is free to carry on business within the law, and mere tax planning without a motive to evade taxes through colorable devices is not frowned upon. The liability to taxation, for the purpose of tax treaty application, is a legal situation, not the fiscal fact of actual payment.

(i) CIT v. Merchem Ltd.

378 ITR 443 · 2015 · High Court

631

citing judgments

Belated remittance of employees' contribution to ESI and PF, even if deposited before the due date for filing the return of income under Section 139(1), is not allowed as a deduction. This disallowance falls under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x), as Section 43B applies only to employer's contributions.

Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT

384 ITR 490 · 2016 · High Court

631

citing judgments

Co-operative banks are not fundamentally different from co-operative societies, entitling them to claim deductions under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961, including for interest income treated as business income.

CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corpn

41 Taxmann.com 100 · 2014 · High Court

540

citing judgments

Employees' contributions to provident fund or other welfare funds are deductible under section 36(1)(va) only if paid by the due date specified in the respective welfare fund enactments, and section 43B does not extend this period to the income tax return filing due date under section 139(1).

Judgments citing Section 139(2)

Pankajkumar Chimanlal Lodhiya, Rajkot vs. The ACIT, Central Circle-2, Rajkot

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

ITA 79/RJT/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 40

BATHS AAS OT, ASTHMA SATA | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT

Pankajkumar Chimanlal Lodhiya, Rakjot vs. The ACIT, Central Circle-2, Rajkot

ITA 78/RJT/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Apr 2025AY 2010-11

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 154Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40

Indian Income tax Act, 1922 or which you were required to furnish under section 139(1) or by a notice given under section 139(2) / 148 of the Income tax Act, 1961 No. or have without reasonable cause failed to furnish it within the time allowed and the manner required

Pankajkumar Chimanlal Lodhiya, Rajkot vs. The Actit, Central Circle-2, Rajkot

ITA 77/RJT/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Apr 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.76 To 80/Rjt/2022 निर्धारणवर्ष /Assessment Year: 2008-09 To 2012-13 & आयकर अपीलसं/.Ita No. 81/Rjt/2022 निर्धारणवर्ष /Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Pankaj Chimanlal Lodhiya 3Rd Floor, Parth, Diwanpara Main Road, Rajkot-3600 001 Pan: Aampl 3903 F (अपीलार्थी/Assessee) निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ar राजस्व की ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05/03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30/04/2025 Order Per Bench, Captioned Six Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To The Assessment Years (Ays) 2008-09 To 2012-13 & Ay 2014-15, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), (“Ld.Cit(A)” For Short) Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act" For Short), Which In Turn Arise Out Of Separate Penalty Orders, Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) & 271Aab(1)(C) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 40

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, राजकोटन्यायपीठ, राजकोट । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT

Pankaj Chimanlal Lodhiya, Rajkot vs. The ACIT, Central Circle-2, Rajkot

ITA 76/RJT/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Apr 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 40

ITA No.76 to 81/RJT/2022 (AY 8-09 to 12-13 & 14-15) Pankaj C Lodhiya आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, राजकोटन्यायपीठ, राजकोट

Shivaji Laxman Sahane, Nashik vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1, Nashik

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1078/PUN/2024[A.Y. 2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Apr 2025

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1078/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S.ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 or which you were required to furnish under Section 139(1) or by a notice given under Section 139(2)/148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, No. Dt. or have without reasonable cause failed to furnish it within the time allowed and the manner

V.V. Mohammed, Kannur vs. ITO, Ward-2, Kannur

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

ITA 862/COCH/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin04 Apr 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri.Sureshkumar C, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Sr.AR

Section 139(1)Section 139(2)Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 22(1)Section 22(4)Section 271Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 or which you were required to furnish under section 139(1) or by a notice given under section 139(2)/148 of the Income tax Act 1961, No......dated have without reasonable cause failed to furnish it within the time allowed and the manner required

DCIT, Central Circle - 7(1), Mumbai vs. Triumph Securities Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 962/MUM/2024[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jan 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal (VirtuallyFor Respondent: Dr. P. Daniel – Spl. Counsel

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Indian Income- tax Act. 1922 or which you were required to furnish under Section 139(1) or by a notice given under Section 139(2)/148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, No. dated or have without reasonable cause failed to furnish it within the time allowed and the manner

Priority Jewels Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (A), Appeals

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA 3196/Mum/2024 is

ITA 3196/MUM/2024[AY 2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2024

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

Section 246ASection 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 or which you were required to furnish under section 139(1) or by a notice given under section 139(2)/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, 10 ITA No.3196 /Mum/2024 Priority Jewels Private Limited NOyy.00s000000---Dated..... ..or have without reasonable cause failed to furnish itwithin

The DCIT, Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Venus Infrastructure & Developers Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 38/AHD/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos. 37 & 38/Ahd/2021 धििाधरणणवध/Asstt. Years: 2008-09 & 2017-18 D.C.I.T, M/S Venus Infrastructure & Central Circle-1(1), Vs. Developers Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad 1101 Venus Amadeus, Jodhpur Cross Road, Ahmedabad-380015. Pan: Aahcs6254J (Applicant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Akhilendra Pratap Yadaw Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate With Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar & Shri Vijay Govani A.Rs सुिणाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08/02/2024 घोवणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement: 14/02/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Two Appeal Have Been Filed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad, Of Even Dated 20/01/2021 Arising In The Matter Of Assessment Order Passed Under S. 147 R.W.S. 143(3) & 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (Here- In-After Referred To As "The Act") Relevant To The Assessment Years 2008-09 & 2017-18. First, We Take Up Ita No. 38/Ahd/2021, An Appeal By The Revenue For Ay 2017-18

For Appellant: ShriFor Respondent: Shri Akhilendra Pratap Yadaw

Section 80Section 80I

that section is very significant which provides that the aforesaid notice has to be treated as if it is a notice under section 139(2) and that all the provisions of the Act shall apply to the subsequent procedure and the final assessment. In other words, the notice issued under ... section 148 has to be deemed to be a notice under section 139(2) and, if the other provisions of the Act have to be applied, an assessment in pursuance of that can be made only under section 143 or section 144. We were not shown any other provision

The DCIT, Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Venus Infrastructure & Developers Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 37/AHD/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Feb 2024AY 2008-09

For Appellant: ShriFor Respondent: Shri Akhilendra Pratap Yadaw

Section 80Section 80I

Shri Girishbhai Nanjibhai Solanki, Rajkot vs. The ITO, Ward-1 (1) (2), Rajkot

ITA 32/RJT/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot01 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos. 31 & 32/Rjt/2020 िनधा"रणवष"/Asstt. Years:2011-12, 2012-13 िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष"

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B. D. Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Shri Girishbhai Nanjibhai Solanki, Rajkot vs. The ITO, Ward-1 (1) (2), Rajkot

ITA 31/RJT/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot01 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B. D. Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Vinod (Ratan) Suhalka, Udaipur vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Udaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 241/JODH/2019[2007-08]Status: PendingITAT Jodhpur05 Jan 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosain

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

cause failed to furnish the return of income which you were required to furnish u/s 139(1) or by a notice given under section 139(2)/ 148 of the Income Tax, 1961 or have without reasonable cause failed to furnish it within the time allowed and in the manner requiuired

Viveck Mathreja, Mumbai vs. ACIT National Faceless Assessment Centre, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2594/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalviveck Mathreja Vs. Acit, National Face Less Plot No. 5, Trishul Assessment Centre Hatkesh Co-Op, Hsg.Sty, 2Nd Floor, Kautilya Road No. 6, Jvpd, Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Ville Parle (W), Complex, Bandra Mumbai – 400 056 Mumbai - 400050 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Acxpm8278M Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: N.R. AggarwalFor Respondent: Vranda U Matkarni

Section 139(1)Section 139(2)Section 143(3)Section 22(1)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Indian Income Tax Act,1922 or which you were required to furnish under Section 139(1) or by a notice given under section 139(2)/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, ……………dated ……or have without reasonable cause failed to furnish it within the time allowed and the manner required

Sushil Kumar Paul, Siliguri vs. A.C.I.T., Circle-2, Siliguri

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

ITA 2274/KOL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2016-17 Sushil Kumar Paul Acit, Circle-2, Siliguri. C/O. Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates, Siddha Vs. Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata – 700 069. (Pan: Akfpp 4837 K) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Siddarth Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 24.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.12.2022 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), Siliguri Dated 23.08.2019 For A.Y. 2016-17. The Assessee Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “I. For That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Confirming The Penalty Of Rs. 23,70,000/- Imposed By The Ao By Wrongly Invoking The Provisions Of Section 271Aab Of The Income Tax Act.

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT, DR

Section 271A

Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 or which you were required to furnish under section 139(1) or by a notice given under section 139(2)/ 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, No………….. dated………. Or have without reasonable cause failed to furnish it within the time allowed and the manner

Shri Bhanwarlal M. Harsh, Thane vs. Dy CIT CC-3(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 538/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhshri Bhanwarlal M Shah Vs. Dcit, Central Circle 3(3) A/2, 406, Runwal Plaza, Air India Building Nr. Koresh India Vartak Nariman Point, Nagar, Thane (West) Mumbai - 400021 400606 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aacph5666F Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Manoj MundraFor Respondent: J. Saravanan

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Indian Income- tax Act, 1922 or which you were required to furnish under section 139(1) or by a notice given under section 139(2)/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, No…………………………..dated…………. or have without reasonable cause failed to furnish it within the time allowed and the manner

Alok Garg, Ghaziabad vs. DCIT, Circle- 1, Ghaziabad

ITA 7528/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Nov 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri R.K. Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Kirti Sankartyan, Senior DR

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 3

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘A’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI KULDIP

Kissan Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd., Ghaziabad vs. DCIT, Circle- 1, Ghaziabad

ITA 6983/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conference)

For Appellant: Shri Satyajeet Goel, CAFor Respondent: Shri Farhat Khan, Senior DR

Section 143Section 2Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 50C

return of income which you were required to furnish by a notice given under Section 139(1) or by a notice given under Section 139(2)/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated………… or have without reasonable cause failed to furnish it which the time allowed in the manner

Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi II vs. Medicare Investments Ltd

ITA - 840 / 2008HC Delhi20 Mar 2015

Assessing Officer in the first round and was not loss determined in pursuance of a return filed in accordance with the provisions of section 139(2) of the Act and, hence, could not be carried forward and set off under section 80 of 2015:DHC:2664-DB ITA Nos.25/01, 840/08