← 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)

Kodiyil Muhammed Madani, Taliparamba vs. DCIT, Centralcircle 1, Kozhikode

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 342/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin04 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143Section 153ASection 153DSection 263

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM AND SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JM ITA

Kodiyil Muhammed Madani, Taliparamba vs. DCIT, Centralcircle 1, Kozhikode

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 341/COCH/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin04 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143Section 153ASection 153DSection 263

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM AND SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JM ITA

Keeran Muhammed Basheer, Kannur vs. DCIT, Centralcircle 1, Kozhikode

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 340/COCH/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin04 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143Section 153ASection 153DSection 263

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM AND SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JM ITA

Heddur Vyavasaya Seva Sahakara Sanga Niyamitha, Shimoga vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Shimoga

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

ITA 928/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Gireesha T.L, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate for Standing
Section 139(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 249(2)Section 80ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

only. 5. As the assessee had not filed the return of income within the prescribed time limit under section 139(1) of the Act, the AO, in accordance with the provisions of section 80AC of the Act, proposed to disallow the claim of deduction under section ... ground that the return of income for A.Y. 2018–19 was not filed within the prescribed time under section 139(1) of the Act. The learned AO disallowed the claim under section 80AC of the Act and completed the assessment under section 147 r.w.s. 144B

R- Pac (India ) Private Limtied, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 11(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2080/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawalr-Pac (India) Pvt Ltd Vs. Ito, Ward – 11(1)(1) 1001 & 1002, Rupa Room No. 201, 2Nd Solitaire, Bldg, No. 1, Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Millennium Business Park, Mk Road, Mumbai – Mahape, Navi Mumbai – 400020. 400710. Pan/Gir No. Aabcr8633E (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 11(1)Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 263Section 80J

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL

Sabbirahmed Basirahmed Shaikh, Dabhoi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(1)(7), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 205/AHD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2021-22 Sabbirahmed Basirahmed Shaikh Ito, Ward-4(1)(7) 5-Jantanagar Society Vs. Vadodara. O/S.Mahudi Bhagol At & Post Dabhoi Pan : Agtps 9809 A (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Bhupendra C. Mehta, Advocate Assessee By : Shri Amit Pratap Singh Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30/07/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 01/08/2025

For Appellant: Shri Amit Pratap Singh Sr.DR
Section 10Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 89(1)

case, as emanating from the record, are that the assessee, an individual and a resident, filed his original return of income under section 139(1) of the Act for the A.Y. 2021–22 on 30.12.2021, declaring a total income of Rs.38,32,290/-, which included gross salary income of Rs.38

Mahesh Kumar Jain, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle - 3(3), Hyderabad

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

ITA 813/HYD/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad01 Aug 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.813/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2017-18) Shri Mahesh Kumar Jain, Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. Central Circle 3(3), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan:Afhpm6964R (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri C.Raj Kumar, C.A. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 28/07/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 01/08/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Shri Mahesh Kumar Jain (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Hyderabad (“Ld. Cit(A)”), Dated 24.04.2025 For The A.Y. 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

For Appellant: Shri C.Raj Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: : Dr. Sachin Kumar, SR-DR
Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 69C

Praveen Marketing, engaged in wholesale and retail trade of electronic parts and equipments. The assessee filed his return of income under section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) for the assessment year 2017–18 on 31.10.2017, declaring total income of Rs.6,49,460/-. Subsequently, a search

The Muthada Khurd Co Operative Agri Multipurpose Society Limited, Jalandhar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Phagwara

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

ITA 481/ASR/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar31 Jul 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: None (Adjournment application)
Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 250Section 80ASection 80P

amount of Rs. 24,69,692/-, presumably on the ground that the return of income was furnished beyond the due date prescribed under section 139(1).” 8. Now the matter is in appeal before the tribunal on the grounds contained in the memorandum of appeal. From the SOF and grounds ... disallowance of claim for deduction u/s 80P, is presumably on the ground that the return was furnished beyond the due date prescribed under section 139(1), which indicates that the Ld first appellate authority is also not certain as to the reasons for the disallowance , and on assumption

The DCIT Central Circle-1, Rajkot vs. Shri Shamjibhai Sadhabhai Kangad, Gandhidham-Kutch

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue, in IT(SS) No

ITA 321/RJT/2022[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot31 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआ.(खो और ज).सं./It(Ss)A Nos.11 To 20/Rjt/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Years:2011-12 To 2020-21 बनाम/ Shri Shamjibhai Sadhabhai Deputy Commissioner Of Kangad Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Vs. Bbz-S-60, Zanda Chowk, “Amruta Estate”, 2Nd Floor, Gandhidham-370 201 M.G. Road, Rajkot-360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.:Adepk 3471 E (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) आ.(खो और ज).सं./It(Ss)A Nos.21 To 23/Rjt/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Years:2014-15, 2016-17 &2017-18 बनाम/ Deputy Commissioner Of Income Shri Shamjibhai Sadhabhai Tax, Central Circle-1, “Amruta Kangad Vs. Estate”, 2Nd Floor, M.G. Road, Bbz-S-60, Zanda Chowk, Rajkot-360001 Gandhidham-370 201 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.:Aabca 8202 E (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) आ.(खो और ज).सं./It(Ss)A Nos.15/Rjt/2023 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Year:2019-20 बनाम/ Deputy Commissioner Of Shri Hetab Shamjibhai Kangad Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Bbz-South-60, Zanda Chowk, Vs. “Amruta Estate”, 2Nd Floor, Gandhidham-370 201 M.G. Road, Rajkot-360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.:Aqtpk 7484 M (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 153A

loss as contained in section1 39(3) of the Act is that only loss which are returned within the time allowed as per section 139(1) of the Act are allowed to be carried forward and set off against the income of the succeeding years. There is no dispute with ... that the return filed in response to the notice under section 153A of the Act are to be treated as that filed under section 139(1) of the Act (Kirit Dahyabhai Patel(supra),there is no denial or dispute with regard to the same also. But the said decision

Shri Shamjibhai Sadhabhai Kangad, Gandhidham-Kutch vs. The DCIT Central Circle-1, Rajkot

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue, in IT(SS) No

ITA 320/RJT/2022[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot31 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 153A

loss as contained in section1 39(3) of the Act is that only loss which are returned within the time allowed as per section 139(1) of the Act are allowed to be carried forward and set off against the income of the succeeding years. There is no dispute with ... that the return filed in response to the notice under section 153A of the Act are to be treated as that filed under section 139(1) of the Act (Kirit Dahyabhai Patel(supra),there is no denial or dispute with regard to the same also. But the said decision

Shree Society, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(5), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 226/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.226/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shree Society Vs. Income Tax Officer Visakhapatnam Ward 1(5) Pan:Aanas1911Q Visakhapatnam (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri I Rama Sastry, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 29/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 31/07/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothis Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30/03/2024 Of The Learned Pr.Cit Passed U/S 263 R.W.S. 254 Of The Act For The A.Y 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri I Rama Sastry, CAFor Respondent: : Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT(DR)
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

ITA No 226 of 2024 Shree Society Visakhapatnam IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Visakhapatnam DB Bench, Visakhapatnam Before Shri

Jayakumaran Pillai Govindapillai, Kollam vs. Income Tax Officer, Kollam

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

ITA 463/COCH/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2015-16 Jayakumaran Pillai Govindapillai .......... Appellant Arya Bhawan, Kuttikkadu, Kadakkal, Kottarakkara, Kollam, Kerala [Pan: Amdpp 2014 J] Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Kollam .......... Respondent

For Appellant: Smt. Divya Ravindran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)

individual deriving income from salary. The return of income for the A.Y. 2015-16 was not filed under the provisions of section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, the ‘Act’). However, on the basis 2 Jayakumaran Pillai Govindapillai of information, the AO noted that assessee

Karayavattam Service Co-Operative Bank Limited, Karayavattam vs. Income Tax Officer Ward2(1), Thrissur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 453/COCH/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2009-10 Karayavattam Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd., .......... Appellant Karayavattam P.O., Thrissur-680 567 [Pan: Aaaak 7874 R] Vs. Ito, Ward-1 & Tps, .......... Respondent Guruvayur.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

operative Societies Act, 1969. It is classified as primary agricultural credit cooperative society. No regular return of income under the provisions of section 139(1) of 2 Karayavattam Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. the Act was filed for the A.Y. 2009-10. The AO issued notice

St Francis Xaviers Forane Church, Kannamali vs. Income Tax Officer(Exemptions), Ernakulam

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 438/COCH/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2014-15 St. Francis Xaviers Forance Church, .......... Appellant Kandakadavu, Andikkadavu (Po), Kannamali, Kochi. [Pan: Aadts 3622 B] Vs. Ito (Exemptions), Ernakulam, Kochi .......... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar P J, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena La, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)

holding that Form No. 10 for accumulation, only filed on 18/03/2016 and was not filed within the time limit prescribed in section 139(1) of the Act. 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal. 5. It is submitted that filing of Form ... ground that prescribed form i.e. Form 10 was not filed within the due date prescribed in section 139(1) of the Act. Undisputedly, the audit report along with return of income is filed belatedly. It is a settled position of law that time limit for filing of Form

Jags Impex, Vennala vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Range-2, Kochi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 434/COCH/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2012-13 Jags Impex, Cc/1806 B, .......... Appellant Arakkakadav Road, Thaikkavu Junction, Vennala P.O. – 682 028 [Pan: Aaefj 8325 K] Vs. Ito, Ward-2(1), .......... Respondent Range-2, Kochi

For Appellant: Smt. Divya Ravindran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM Assessment Year: 2012-13 Jags Impex

Sacred Heart Public School Kottayam, Kottayam vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward, Kottayam

In the result, the appeal and the stay application filed by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 423/COCH/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri P.V. Chacko, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 11Section 115BSection 12Section 12ASection 139Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144

regular return of income 2 ITA No. 423/Coch/2025 & SA No. 61/C/2025 Sacred Heart Public School was filed under the provisions of section 139(1) of the Act. The ITO (Exemption), Kottayam (hereinafter called "the AO"), based on the information that the appellant trust made cash deposits during demonetisation period formed ... appellant trust for exemption u/s. 11 of the Act. Admittedly, the appellant had not filed return of income under the provisions of section 139(1) of the Act. The AO issued notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act on 21.12.2017 calling upon the appellant to file return of income. However

Elankur Service Co Operative Bank Limited, Malappuram vs. A.C.I.T., Circle-1, Tirur

ITA 418/COCH/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2009-10 Elankur Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd., .......... Appellant Manjery, Elankur, Malappuram. [Pan: Aaaae 5993 M] Vs. Acit, Circle-2, Tirur .......... Respondent Appellant By: Ms. Jinu Pookat, Advocate Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.07.2025

For Appellant: Ms. Jinu Pookat, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr.DR
Section 139(1)Section 148Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(4)

primary agricultural credit cooperative society. The assessee had not filed its return of income for the A.Y. 2009-10 under the provisions of section 139(1) of the Act. Therefore, the AO issued notice u/s. 148 of the Act on 24/03/2016. In response to 2 Elankur Service Co-op. Bank

Popular Freight Express Private Limited, Kochi vs. DCIT, Corporate Cir 2(1), Kochi

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

ITA 416/COCH/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2013-14 Popular Freight Express Pvt. Ltd. .......... Appellant Plot No.111, Judges Avenue Road, Kaloor, Kochi [Pan: Aafcp 1918 A] Vs. Ito, Corporate Ward-2(3) .......... Respondent Ernakulam Appellant By: Shri Thomas Joseph, Ca Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.07.2025

For Appellant: Shri Thomas Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr.DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM Assessment Year: 2013-14 Popular Freight

Hanna Bhavan Oldage Charitable Society, Kottayam vs. ITO, Exemption Ward, Kottayam

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed with the aforesaid liberty

ITA 415/COCH/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2020-21 Hanna Bhavan Oldage Charitable .......... Appellant Society, Bethany Convent, Pulikuttissery P.O., Kottayam, Kerala [Pan: Aabth 4320 F] Vs. The Asst. Director Of Income Tax, .......... Respondent Cpc, Bengaluru.

For Appellant: Shri R. Krishnan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM Assessment Year: 2020-21 Hanna Bhavan

Edamuttam Serivce Coop Bank Limited Nor305, Edamuttam vs. Income Tax Officer, Guruvayur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed with the aforesaid liberty

ITA 412/COCH/2025[AAAAE4543R]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2018-19 Edamuttam Service Cooperative .......... Appellant Bank Ltd. No. R 305, Edamuttam, Thrissur, Kerala [Pan: Aaaae 4543 R] Vs. Ito, Ward-1 & Tps, .......... Respondent Guruvayur, Thrissur.

For Appellant: Shri M. Ramdas, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. DR
Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM Assessment Year: 2018-19 Edamuttam Service