← 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 Commssioner of Income Tax (Central Circle) -3(3), Mumbai vs. Excel Entertainment Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6469/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.6469/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2020-21) Deputy Commissioner V/S. Excel Entertainment Pvt Of Income Tax बनाम Ltd. (Central Circle)-3(3) 404, Kautilya Bhawan, Bkc, Mumbai 400051 Shubham 701, Orchid Pride, Convent Avenue Road, Santacruz (W), Mumbai 40054 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaace5273A Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee By: Shri Nitesh Joshi A/W Shri Anurag Tulsian & Shri Vipul Mody राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing 08.07.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 06.08.2025 आदेश / Order Per Renu Jauhri [A.M.] :- This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Appeal) 51, Mumbai [Cit(A)] Dated 15.10.2024 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “Act”] For Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds In This Appeal. "1. "On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld Citia) Is Not Justified In Holding That Assessee Is Eligible To Claim Concessional Rate Of Tax U/S.115Baa Of The Page 2

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi a/w Shri Anurag Tulsian & Shri Vipul ModyFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, SR DR
Section 115Section 115BSection 139Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 250

availing of the concessional tax rate regime must be exercised within the time permissible for the filing of the income tax return under section 139(1); section 115 BAA unambiguously provides so when it states that "nothing contained in this section shall apply unless the option is exercised