← 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, Vyapar vs. Vishal Automobiles, Tifra

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the department stands dismissed

ITA 383/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur30 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 383/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2018-19) Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income M/S Vishal Automobiles, Tifra Near Tax-1(1), 1St Floor, Shri Ram Plaza, Railway Crossing, Bilaspur Vypar Vihar, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 495001, Chhattisgarh. Pan: Aaffv0333C Co No. 16/Rpr/2025 (Arises Out Of Ita No: 383/Rpr/2025) M/S Vishal Automobiles, Tifra Near Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Railway Crossing, Bilaspur 495001, Lines, Raipur-492001, C.G. Chhattisgarh. Pan: Aaffv0333C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) .. िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Vinod Kumar Khatri, Ca. राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. Dr. सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 29.07.2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 30.07.2025

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Khatri, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 250Section 438Section 43B

component was not paid off on or before the due date for furnishing the return in relation to the previous year under Section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act. The First Appellate Authority also noticed that it is an undisputed fact that the Appellant did not charge

Income Tax Officer, Exemptions Ward, Trichy vs. Arulmigu Swaminatha Swami Thirukkovil, Kumbakonam

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 370/CHNY/2025[2013]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jul 2025

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 370 & 368/Chny/2025 & Co Nos.32 & 33/Chny/2025 (In Ita Nos.: 370 & 368/Chny/2025) धनिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Arulmigu Swaminatha Swami Exemptions Ward, Trichy, Thirukkovil, Vs. The Executive Officer, Swamimalai, Kumbakonam – 612 301. [Pan: Aaata-6446-J] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (Respondent/Cross Objector) अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri. P. Krishna Kumar, J.C.I.T. प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09.05.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30.07.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench: These Appeals Filed By The Revenue & Cross Objections Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, For The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15, Vide Order Dated 20.12.2024. Since The Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, Appeals Filed By The Revenue & Cross Objections Filed By The Assessee Were Heard & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Shri. P. Krishna Kumar, J.C.I.TFor Respondent: Shri. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate
Section 10Section 11Section 12A(1)(b)Section 139Section 139(1)Section 147

1)(b)(ii) of the Act / proviso to Section 10(23C) of the Act for filing audit report within the time stipulated under Section 139(1) of the Act ought to have been reckoned as directory and not mandatory and further ought to have appreciated that the dispensing with

The Income Tax Officer, Exemptions Ward, Trichy vs. Arulmigu Swaminatha Swami Thirukkovil, Kumbakonam

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 368/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 370 & 368/Chny/2025 & Co Nos.32 & 33/Chny/2025 (In Ita Nos.: 370 & 368/Chny/2025) धनिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Arulmigu Swaminatha Swami Exemptions Ward, Trichy, Thirukkovil, Vs. The Executive Officer, Swamimalai, Kumbakonam – 612 301. [Pan: Aaata-6446-J] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (Respondent/Cross Objector) अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri. P. Krishna Kumar, J.C.I.T. प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09.05.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30.07.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench: These Appeals Filed By The Revenue & Cross Objections Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, For The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15, Vide Order Dated 20.12.2024. Since The Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, Appeals Filed By The Revenue & Cross Objections Filed By The Assessee Were Heard & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Shri. P. Krishna Kumar, J.C.I.TFor Respondent: Shri. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate
Section 10Section 11Section 12A(1)(b)Section 139Section 139(1)Section 147

1)(b)(ii) of the Act / proviso to Section 10(23C) of the Act for filing audit report within the time stipulated under Section 139(1) of the Act ought to have been reckoned as directory and not mandatory and further ought to have appreciated that the dispensing with