← All Phrases

“Section 139(1)”

Section References (mined)Section 139Section 139(1)7,818 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 139(1) is CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (359 ITR 565), cited in 2,590 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 139(1)

CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory
359 ITR 565 · 2013 · High Court
2,590
citing judgments

A penalty notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) is invalid if it fails to specify whether the penalty proceedings are initiated for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. This non-specification vitiates the penalty proceedings.

Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT
284 ITR 323 · 2006 · Supreme Court
1,842
citing judgments

An assessee cannot raise a new claim or a claim not made in the original or revised return of income for the first time directly before the Assessing Officer during assessment proceedings.

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.

CIT v. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders
349 ITR 336 · 2012 · High Court
956
citing judgments

Appellate authorities can entertain fresh claims or revised computations of income made by an assessee, even if these were not submitted through a revised return of income.

CIT v. SSA’s Emerald Meadows
73 Taxmann.com 241 · 2016 · High Court
791
citing judgments

A penalty notice under section 271(1)(c) read with section 274 of the Income Tax Act is invalid if it fails to specify whether the penalty is for concealment of income or for furnishing incorrect particulars of income.

Judgments citing Section 139(1)

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Panaji vs. M/S Mohit Ispat Ltd., Kundaim

Appeal of the Revenue is PARTLY ALLOWED in aforestated terms

ITA 9/PAN/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji13 Oct 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliassessment Years: 2016-17 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle, Panaji, Goa. . . . . . . . Appellant V/S M/S Mohit Ispat Limited 339/340, Kundaim Industrial Estate, Goa-403115 Pan: Aaccm8154E . . . . . . . Respondent Represented Assessee By: Mr Shriniwas Naik & Narchiva Lotlikar [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By: Mr Naveen Kumar [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 04/02/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 27/02/2026 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; This Appeal Of The Revenue Instituted U/S 253(2) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’] Challenges Order Dt. 04/10/2019 Passed U/S 250 Of The Act By The Commissioner Of Income Tax Appeals-2, Panaji Goa [‘Ld. Cit(A)’] Which In Turn Sprung From Order Of Assessment Dt. 30/12/2017 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act By Acit, Central Circle, Panaji Goa [‘Ld. Ao’] Anent To Assessment Year 2016-17.[‘Ay’]

For Appellant: Mr Shriniwas Naik & Narchiva Lotlikar [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Naveen Kumar [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 132Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 253(2)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PANAJI BENCH, GOA BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI

Ranar Agrochem Limited, Parawada vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Visakhapatnam

ITA 288/VIZ/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 Aug 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.288/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2014-15) Ranar Agrochem Limited, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Visakhapatnam. Of Income Tax, Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aaccp0372M (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri M. Madhusudan, Ca (Hybrid) राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Sri Jenardhanan V, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 14/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 31/10/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Company Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Center (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 15/05/2024, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “A.O.”) Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short “The Act”) Dated 30/12/2016 For A.Y.

For Appellant: Shri M. Madhusudan, CAFor Respondent: Sri Jenardhanan V, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 68

rule, order or notification, while as per section 438, the due date refers to the date for filing of the return under section 139(1). 5.3.6 This distinction has also been spell out by the CBDT Circular No. 22/2015 as under. 6 Ranar Agrochem Limited vs. DCIT CIRCULAR NO.22/2015 [F.NO ... fund for the welfare of employees, on or before the 'due date' applicable in his case for furnishing the return of income under section 139(1) of the Act, no disallowance can be made under section 43B of the Act. 4. In the light of the Supreme Court's decision

Shyam Sunder, Gururgam vs. ITO ( Circle 4(1), Gurgram

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4779/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 2(14)Section 54BSection 54F

separately under section 271(1)(c) for concealment of income and under section 271F for failure to file the return of income under section 139(1) of the Act. 4. Against the order of the AO the assessee went in appeal before

Valsan Chiyyabath Narayanan, Thrissur vs. DCIT Circle 1(1)& Tps, Thrissur

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 82/COCH/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Aug 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav., Jm

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 273

case are that the appellant is an individual, had not filed regular return of income for AY 2013-14 under the provisions of section 139(1) of the Act. The AO formed an opinion that income escaped assessment to tax on the basis of information contained on ITBA portal that ... response to the show cause the appellant offered explanation that the appellant could not file the return of income under the provisions of section 139(1) for personal reasons and there is no deliberate intention to avoid tax. The AO rejected this explanation and proceeded with levy of penalty

Valsan Chiyyabath Narayanan, Thrissur vs. DCIT Circle 1(1)& Tps, Thrissur

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 81/COCH/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Aug 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav., Jm

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 273

case are that the appellant is an individual, had not filed regular return of income for AY 2013-14 under the provisions of section 139(1) of the Act. The AO formed an opinion that income escaped assessment to tax on the basis of information contained on ITBA portal that ... response to the show cause the appellant offered explanation that the appellant could not file the return of income under the provisions of section 139(1) for personal reasons and there is no deliberate intention to avoid tax. The AO rejected this explanation and proceeded with levy of penalty

Valsan Chiyyabath Narayanan, Thrissur vs. DCIT Circle 1(1)& Tps, Thrissur

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 80/COCH/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Aug 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav., Jm

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 273

case are that the appellant is an individual, had not filed regular return of income for AY 2013-14 under the provisions of section 139(1) of the Act. The AO formed an opinion that income escaped assessment to tax on the basis of information contained on ITBA portal that ... response to the show cause the appellant offered explanation that the appellant could not file the return of income under the provisions of section 139(1) for personal reasons and there is no deliberate intention to avoid tax. The AO rejected this explanation and proceeded with levy of penalty

Valsan Chiyyabath, Thrissur vs. DCIT Circle 1(1)& Tps, Thrissur

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 28/COCH/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Aug 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav., Jm

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 273

case are that the appellant is an individual, had not filed regular return of income for AY 2013-14 under the provisions of section 139(1) of the Act. The AO formed an opinion that income escaped assessment to tax on the basis of information contained on ITBA portal that ... response to the show cause the appellant offered explanation that the appellant could not file the return of income under the provisions of section 139(1) for personal reasons and there is no deliberate intention to avoid tax. The AO rejected this explanation and proceeded with levy of penalty

DCIT Central Circle-26, New Delhi vs. Kcj Buildtech Pvt Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, Cross objections is allowed

ITA 9645/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Aug 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Sh. Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Ms. Shilpi Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Dhami, CIT-D.R
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 153CSection 68

lead case. 6. The brief facts leading to this case is this that the assessee before us filed its return of income under section 139(1) of the Act on 26.09.2012 declaring income at Rs.5,883/-. Subsequently, a search under section 132 of the Act was carried

DCIT Central Circle-26, New Delhi vs. Kcj Buildtech Pvt Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, Cross objections is allowed

ITA 9644/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Aug 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Sh. Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Ms. Shilpi Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Dhami, CIT-D.R
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 153CSection 68

lead case. 6. The brief facts leading to this case is this that the assessee before us filed its return of income under section 139(1) of the Act on 26.09.2012 declaring income at Rs.5,883/-. Subsequently, a search under section 132 of the Act was carried

DCIT Central Circle-26, New Delhi vs. Kcj Buildtech Pvt Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, Cross objections is allowed

ITA 9643/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Aug 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Sh. Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Ms. Shilpi Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Dhami, CIT-D.R
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 153CSection 68

lead case. 6. The brief facts leading to this case is this that the assessee before us filed its return of income under section 139(1) of the Act on 26.09.2012 declaring income at Rs.5,883/-. Subsequently, a search under section 132 of the Act was carried

Gurmeet Singh Hora, Raipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 45/RPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur02 Jul 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 45/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Gurmeet Singh Hora A-1, Sai Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aaoph6268D .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Centralized Processing Center (Cpc), Bengaluru ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

disallowance does not come into play when the payment is made well before the due date of filing the income tax return under section 139(1). Viewed thus also, the impugned adjustment is vitiated in law, and we must delete the same for this short reason as well

Adat Farmers Service Co-Op Bank Ltd, Thrissur vs. The ITO Ward 2(1), Thrisssur

In the result, the assessee’s former appeal ITA No

ITA 334/COCH/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 May 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 144Section 273B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member and Shri Amarjit Singh

ACIT, Central Circle-8, New Delhi vs. Dheeraj Chaudhary, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Department of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6380/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Apr 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumaracit Vs. Sh. Dheeraj Chaudhary Central Circle-8 Flat No.1A Empire Estate, New Delhi Sultanpur, M.G. Road, New Delhi 110030 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaspk 9267 B Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Monalisha Maity, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT-DR
Section 127Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 250Section 274

P a g e | 1 Dheeraj Chaudhary (AY 2011-12) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, DELHI BEFORE

Manav Seva Lok Kalyan Mahasangh, Nagpur vs. DCIT/ACIT Circle Exemptiom, Nagpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 326/NAG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Roymanav Seva Lok Kalyan Vs Dcit/Acit, Circle Mahasangh, H.No. 32, Teka Exemption, Nagpur Naka, Asi Nagar, Nagpur. Pan : Aabtm 1643 C Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kapil Hirani, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Pankaj Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.03.2026

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Hirani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 12A(1)(b)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 44ASection 80G

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH :: NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI KHETTRA MOHAN ROY, ACCOUNTANT

Ranjana Devi, Maur Mandi vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(1), Bathinda

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

ITA 410/ASR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Dipak P. Ripote & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing) I.T.A. No. 410/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ranjana Devi, C/O Jishu Trading Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1), Co. Maur Mandi, Punjab. Bathinda. [Pan:-Alzpd4607L] (Appellant) (Respondent) None. Appellant By Respondent By Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. Dr.

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR. BEFORE DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. UDAYAN DASGUPTA

Manoj Rajaram Sharma, Thane vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 8313/MUM/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2026AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarmanoj Rajaram Ito - 42(3)(4), Sharma, Mumbai Office No. 615, 6Th Vs. Kautilya Bhawan, C- Floor, Centura Square 41-43, Avenue 3, Near It Park, Sg Barve Videsh Bhavan, G Road, Thane, Block, Bkc, Mumbai Maharashtra-400 604. – 400 051. Pan/Gir No. Bytps1944K (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Suryadev Yadav, Shri Karan Hariya & Shri Prashant Gupta, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 17.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 20.03.2026

Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 272A(1)(d)Section 4Section 44A

Case 2. The assessee is an individual and resident of India. The assessee filed his return of income for A.Y. 2020–21 under section 139(1) of the Act on 17.10.2020 declaring total income of Rs. 4,92,220/-. Subsequently, based on information available with the department, it was observed

H K Ispat Pvt. Ltd., Panchmahal vs. The Dy.CIT, Central Circle-2, Vadodara

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2014–15 to 2021–

ITA 1392/AHD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra R. Kamblesn

Section 250Section 68

brief facts of the case, as per AY 2015-16, are that the assessee company filed its original return of income under section 139(1) declaring total income at Nil. A search action u/s 132 of the Act was carried out in Kothi Group on 05.11.2020, wherein the assessee ... note that M/s Master Developers did not file the income tax returns for the assessment years 2008-09 to AY 2010-11 under section 139 (1) of the Act. But M/s Master Developers has filed the returns of income in response to the notice issued under section

ACIT, Central Circle-2, Vadodara vs. Hk Ispat Pvt Ltd, Godhra

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2014–15 to 2021–

ITA 1278/AHD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra R. Kamblesn

Section 250Section 68

brief facts of the case, as per AY 2015-16, are that the assessee company filed its original return of income under section 139(1) declaring total income at Nil. A search action u/s 132 of the Act was carried out in Kothi Group on 05.11.2020, wherein the assessee ... note that M/s Master Developers did not file the income tax returns for the assessment years 2008-09 to AY 2010-11 under section 139 (1) of the Act. But M/s Master Developers has filed the returns of income in response to the notice issued under section

ACIT, Central Circle-2, Vadodara vs. Hk Ispat Pvt Ltd, Godhra

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2014–15 to 2021–

ITA 1277/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra R. Kamblesn

Section 250Section 68

brief facts of the case, as per AY 2015-16, are that the assessee company filed its original return of income under section 139(1) declaring total income at Nil. A search action u/s 132 of the Act was carried out in Kothi Group on 05.11.2020, wherein the assessee ... note that M/s Master Developers did not file the income tax returns for the assessment years 2008-09 to AY 2010-11 under section 139 (1) of the Act. But M/s Master Developers has filed the returns of income in response to the notice issued under section

Coromandel International Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-2(2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 738/HYD/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Mar 2026AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A. No.738/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year:2015-16) Coromandel International Vs. Dcit, Limited, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aaacc7852K (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) करदाताका""त"न"ध"व/ : Shri Sp Chidambaram, Advocate Assessee Represented By राज"वका""त"न"ध"व/ : Ms. U. Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr Department Represented By सुनवाईसमा"तहोनेक""त"थ/ : 02/03/2026 Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख/ : 18/03/2026 Date Of Pronouncement Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Coromandel International Limited (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 24/02/2025 For The Assessment Year (“A.Y.”) 2015-16. Page 1 Of 17 Coromandel International Limited Vs. Dcit 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 250Section 32Section 32(1)(ii)Section 35

Court in PCIT v. Wipro Ltd. (supra) is concerned, the said decision relates to carry forward of loss without filing a return under section 139(1) r.w. section 139(3) of the Act. However, the present case relates to intra- Page 16 of 17 Coromandel International Limited Vs. DCIT year