← 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)

Mannuthy Town Co Operative Society Ltd No R1143, Mannuthy vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(1), Thrissur

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 394/COCH/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am

For Appellant: Shri Alan Dev, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 80ASection 80A(5)Section 80P

providing Mannuthy Town Co-op. Society Ltd. No. R 1143 credit facilities to its members. No return of income under the provisions of section 139(1) of the Act was filed by the assessee for the AY 2015-16. Therefore, the AO issued a notice ... were made by the assessee in a return of income filed by him. That return can be under Sections 139(1), 139(4), 142(1) or Section 148, and to be valid, had to be filed within the due date contemplated under those provisions. Under Section 80A(5), the claim

Mannuthy Town Co Operative Society Limited No R 1143, Mannuthy vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(1), Thrissur

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 384/COCH/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am

For Appellant: Shri Alan Dev, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 80ASection 80A(5)Section 80P

providing Mannuthy Town Co-op. Society Ltd. No. R 1143 credit facilities to its members. No return of income under the provisions of section 139(1) of the Act was filed by the assessee for the AY 2015-16. Therefore, the AO issued a notice ... were made by the assessee in a return of income filed by him. That return can be under Sections 139(1), 139(4), 142(1) or Section 148, and to be valid, had to be filed within the due date contemplated under those provisions. Under Section 80A(5), the claim

Sunil Melathilveedu Nazarudeen, Oyoor vs. ITO Ward 3, Kollam

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

ITA 363/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sunil Melathilveedu Nazarudeen .......... Appellant Melathil Veedu, Payyacode, Oyoor, Kollam [Pan: Aefpn3764B] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Wd-3, Kollam 691510.......... Respondent Appellant By: Shri R. Krishnan, Ca Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 13.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.07.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 31.01.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is An Individual. No Regular Return Of Income For Ay 2017-18 Was Filed By The Appellant Under The Provisions Of Section 139(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act). The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Kollam (Hereinafter Called "The Ao") Had Come To Know That The Appellant

For Appellant: Shri R. Krishnan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 282(1)

appellant is an individual. No regular return of income for AY 2017-18 was filed by the appellant under the provisions of section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Kollam (hereinafter called "the AO") had come to know that

Bini Agencies, Thrissur vs. ITO, Ward 1(2), Thrissur

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

ITA 232/COCH/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year: 2013-14 Bini Agencies .......... Appellant 28/642, Municipal Rest House Round North, Thrissur 680001 [Pan: Aacfb9538Q] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Wd-1(2), Thrissur .......... Respondent Appellant By: Shri Sridhar S., Advocate Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 10.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.07.2025

For Appellant: Shri Sridhar S., AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)

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

Sainaba, Kozhikode vs. ITO, Ward 1 & Tps, Kannur

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

ITA 192/COCH/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sainaba .......... Appellant 152, Sainaba Manziil, Azhiyoor, Vadakara Kozhikode 673309 [Pan: Dgfps0956H] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Wd-1 & Tps, Kannur .......... Respondent Appellant By: Shri Suresh Kumar C., Ca Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 12.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.07.2025

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Kumar C., CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)

individual deriving income under the head ‘income from house property’. The appellant had not filed the return of income under the provisions of section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) for AY 2017- 18. Therefore, the AO issued a notice u/s. 142(1

Wadakkanchery Govt. Servants Co-Op Society, Wadakkanchery, Thrissur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Thrissur

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands dismissed

ITA 183/COCH/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year: 2023-24 Wadakkanchery Govt. Servants Co-Op. Society .......... Appellant Vadakkanchery P.O., Thrissur 680582 [Pan: Aaaaw5839L] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Wd-2(1), Thrissur .......... Respondent Appellant By: Shri Vipin K.K., Ca Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 12.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.07.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 16.01.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2023-24. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is A Co-Operative Society Registered Under The Kerala State Co-Operative Societies Act, 1969. It Is Engaged In The Business Of Accepting Deposits From Members & Providing Credit Facilities To Members. The Appellant Filed The Return Of Income On 11.12.2023 Declaring Nil Income After Claiming Deduction U/S. 80P(2)(A)(I) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961

For Appellant: Shri Vipin K.K., CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 148Section 80ASection 80A(5)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

were made by the assessee in a return of income filed by him. That return can be under Sections 139(1), 139(4), 142(1) or Section 148, and to be valid, had to be filed within the due date contemplated under those provisions. Under Section 80A(5), the claim ... furnish a return of his income for such assessment year on or before the due date specified in Section 139(1) of the IT Act. In other words, after 1.4.2018, even if the assessee makes his claim for deduction under Section 80P in a return filed within time under Sections

Trikkalangode Vanitha Cooperative Society Ltd, Malappuram vs. ITO, Ward 1, Tirur

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

ITA 958/COCH/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year: 2019-20 Thrikkalangode Vanitha Co-Op. Society Ltd. .......... Appellant Thrikkalangode, Malapuram 676123 [Pan: Aafat1812K] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1., Tirur .......... Respondent Appellant By: Shri Arjun Nedungadi, Ca Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 09.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.07.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 30.09.2024 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2019-20. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is A Co-Operative Society Registered Under The Kerala State Co-Operative Societies Act, 1969. It Is Classified As A Primary Agricultural Credit Co-Operative Society. It Is Engaged In The Business Of Accepting Deposits From Members & Providing Credit Facilities To Members. No Regular

For Appellant: Shri Arjun Nedungadi, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69Section 69ASection 80ASection 80P

members and providing credit facilities to members. No regular 2 Thrikkalangode Vanitha Co-op. Society Ltd. return of income under the provisions of section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) was filed for AY 2019-20. Based on the information that the appellant co-operative society ... society is co- operative society classified as a primary agricultural credit co- operative society. No regular return of income under the provisions of section 139(1) of the Act was filed by the appellant. The Parliament had enacted the provisions of section 80AC vide Finance Act, 2018 in order

Remya Vikraman Nair Rema Devi, Trivandrum vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Trivandrum

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

ITA 701/COCH/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year: 2016-17 Remya Vikraman Nair Rema Devi .......... Appellant 79 2290, Mudumbil Puthenveedu Karikkakom, Thiruvananthapuram 695007 [Pan: Cdmpr5619H] Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1), Thiruvananthapuram .......... Respondent Appellant By: ------- None ------- Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 10.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.07.2025

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 55(2)

Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual. No regular return of income under the provisions of section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) was not filed by the appellant. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Thiruvananthapuram (hereinafter called

Reena Engineers and Contractors Private Ltd, Panaji vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Calicut

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed statistical purposes

ITA 271/COCH/2021[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2014-2015

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

For Appellant: Shri G. Surendranath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 80

remains that the assessee did not make any claim towards deduction under section 80-IA(4) in the return of income filed under section 139(1), for all five assessment years. Further, the appellant has made a claim for deduction under section 80-IA(4), for the first time ... entitled to make a fresh claim under Chapter VI-A, which has not been claimed in the original return of income under section 139(1). It is seen that the department resists any new or subsequent claim in the return filed under section 153A, primarily on the plea that such

Reena Engineers and Contractors Private Ltd, Panaji vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Calicut

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed statistical purposes

ITA 270/COCH/2021[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2016-2017

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

For Appellant: Shri G. Surendranath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 80

remains that the assessee did not make any claim towards deduction under section 80-IA(4) in the return of income filed under section 139(1), for all five assessment years. Further, the appellant has made a claim for deduction under section 80-IA(4), for the first time ... entitled to make a fresh claim under Chapter VI-A, which has not been claimed in the original return of income under section 139(1). It is seen that the department resists any new or subsequent claim in the return filed under section 153A, primarily on the plea that such

Reena Engineers and Contractors Private Ltd, Panaji vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Calicut

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed statistical purposes

ITA 269/COCH/2021[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2015-2016

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

For Appellant: Shri G. Surendranath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 80

remains that the assessee did not make any claim towards deduction under section 80-IA(4) in the return of income filed under section 139(1), for all five assessment years. Further, the appellant has made a claim for deduction under section 80-IA(4), for the first time ... entitled to make a fresh claim under Chapter VI-A, which has not been claimed in the original return of income under section 139(1). It is seen that the department resists any new or subsequent claim in the return filed under section 153A, primarily on the plea that such

Reena Engineers and Contractors Private Ltd, Panaji vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Calicut

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed statistical purposes

ITA 268/COCH/2021[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2013-2014

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

For Appellant: Shri G. Surendranath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 80

remains that the assessee did not make any claim towards deduction under section 80-IA(4) in the return of income filed under section 139(1), for all five assessment years. Further, the appellant has made a claim for deduction under section 80-IA(4), for the first time ... entitled to make a fresh claim under Chapter VI-A, which has not been claimed in the original return of income under section 139(1). It is seen that the department resists any new or subsequent claim in the return filed under section 153A, primarily on the plea that such

Reena Engineers and Contractors Private Ltd, Panaji vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Calicut

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

ITA 267/COCH/2021[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2012-2013

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

For Appellant: Shri G. Surendranath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 80

remains that the assessee did not make any claim towards deduction under section 80-IA(4) in the return of income filed under section 139(1), for all five assessment years. Further, the appellant has made a claim for deduction under section 80-IA(4), for the first time ... entitled to make a fresh claim under Chapter VI-A, which has not been claimed in the original return of income under section 139(1). It is seen that the department resists any new or subsequent claim in the return filed under section 153A, primarily on the plea that such

Vishnu Mori, Indore vs. Income Tax Officer - 4(3), Indore

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

ITA 121/IND/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshivishnu Mori, Income Tax Officer- बनाम/ Gram Bangarda, 4(3), Vs. Gandhi Nagar, Indore Indore (Pan: Ayjpv9674N) (Appellant) (Revenue) Assessee By S/Shri Apurva Mehta & Rajesh Mehta, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Dr Date Of Hearing 30.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31.07.2025 आदेश / O R D E R

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 246ASection 250Section 253

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, इंदौर "ायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Super Packagers, Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh vs. Income Tax Officer - 1(3)(4), Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh

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

ITA 132/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Subhash Malguria & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2017-18 Super Packagers, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 80/72, Latouch Road, Ganga Oil Ward-1(3)(4), Kanpur 208001 Mill Compound, Kanpur-208001 Pan:Abtfs2620L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Rakesh Garg, Adv Revenue By: Sh. Puneet Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.07.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: [ This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated 10.12.2024, Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Assessment Order Passed By The Ld. Ao Under Section 144 On 25.11.2019. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts Of The Case In Passing The Impugned Order Dated 10/12/2024 Ex-Parte & Without Deciding The Appeal On Merits. 2. Learned Ao Has Erred In Law & On Facts Of The Case While Passing The Impugned Order Dated 25/11/2019 & Learned Cit(A) Has Upheld Because The Assessment In The Present Case Has Been Carried Out In Respect Of A Non-Existent Entity & Is Thus Void-Ab-Initio. 3. Because, The Present Case Being Of Dual Pan No. Abtfs2620L One Relating To Partnership Firm (Which Ceased To Exist From 01/04/2011) & The Other Relating To The Individual Person (Pan Aaqpj2279Q), Transaction Taken Place In The Bank With Respect To The Pan Of The Partnership Firm Having All Been Disclosed & Assessed In The Return Filed Under Pan Aaqpj2279Q. There Has Been No Escapement Of Income, The Addition Of Rs.93,90,793/- Made Be Deleted.

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Puneet Kumar, CIT DR
Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 2Section 250Section 69A

partnership firm as the bank account still contained the PAN of the partnership firm. When the assessee did not file a return under section 139(1), as it had no assessable income, the ld. AO first issued a notice under section 2 Super Packagers A.Y. 2017-18 142(1

M/S. Bodal Chemicals Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeals being IT(SS)A No

ITA 318/AHD/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jul 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri S.S. Nagar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kamlesh Makwana, CIT-DR and Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.DR
Section 115JSection 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153A(1)(a)Section 153A(1)(b)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ ‘A’ अहमदाबाद। अहमदाबाद। आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण अहमदाबाद

Indian Medical Association Pune Branch, Shukrawar Peth vs. DCIT Exemption Circle, Pune, Swargate

In the result, all the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 766/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250

After examining the submissions, it is observed that the return for the relevant assessment year was filed beyond the due date prescribed under section 139(1) of the Act. Also form 10B has been filed belatedly on 27.04.2021. As per the provisions of the Act, an assessee claiming exemption under ... provisions to section 139(4A) of the Act shows that the assessee is required to file the return as per the provisions of section 139(1) of the Act. Now, perusal of section 139(1) shows that in the case of the assessee which is required to get its account

Indian Medical Association Pune Branch, Shukrawar Peth vs. DCIT Exemption Circle, Pune, Swargate

In the result, all the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 765/PUN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250

After examining the submissions, it is observed that the return for the relevant assessment year was filed beyond the due date prescribed under section 139(1) of the Act. Also form 10B has been filed belatedly on 27.04.2021. As per the provisions of the Act, an assessee claiming exemption under ... provisions to section 139(4A) of the Act shows that the assessee is required to file the return as per the provisions of section 139(1) of the Act. Now, perusal of section 139(1) shows that in the case of the assessee which is required to get its account

Indian Medical Association Pune Branch, Shukrawar Peth vs. DCIT Exemption Circle, Pune, Swargate

In the result, all the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 763/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250

After examining the submissions, it is observed that the return for the relevant assessment year was filed beyond the due date prescribed under section 139(1) of the Act. Also form 10B has been filed belatedly on 27.04.2021. As per the provisions of the Act, an assessee claiming exemption under ... provisions to section 139(4A) of the Act shows that the assessee is required to file the return as per the provisions of section 139(1) of the Act. Now, perusal of section 139(1) shows that in the case of the assessee which is required to get its account

Indian Medical Association Pune Branch, Shukrawar Peth vs. DCIT Exemption Circle, Pune, Swargate

In the result, all the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 762/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250

After examining the submissions, it is observed that the return for the relevant assessment year was filed beyond the due date prescribed under section 139(1) of the Act. Also form 10B has been filed belatedly on 27.04.2021. As per the provisions of the Act, an assessee claiming exemption under ... provisions to section 139(4A) of the Act shows that the assessee is required to file the return as per the provisions of section 139(1) of the Act. Now, perusal of section 139(1) shows that in the case of the assessee which is required to get its account