“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)

Swaran Nadhan Salaria, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 1(2), Mumbai

In the result all In the result all appeals of the assesses from AY 2014

ITA 1051/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

For Appellant: Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Joshi

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 37(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “C” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI RAJ

Swaran Nadhan Salaria, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 1(2), Mumbai

In the result all appeals of the assesses from AY 2014-15 to AY

ITA 1050/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “C” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI RAJ

Swaran Nadhan Salaria, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 1(2), Mumbai

In the result all appeals of the assesses from AY 2014-15 to AY

ITA 1049/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

For Appellant: Mr. Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “C” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI RAJ

The Vedic Culture Centre, Delhi vs. ITO Ward(Exemption)-2(3), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 780/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraita No.780/Del./2025, A.Y. 2022-23 The Vedic Culture Centre Income Tax Officer, 7, Institutional Area Ward (Exemption)-2(3), Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3 Vs. Civic Centre, Minto Road, Pan: Aaatt0811G New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. V. Raja Kumar, Advocate Respondent By Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 30/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/07/2025 Order Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am The Appeal For The Assessment Year (‘Ay’) 2022-23 Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 24.01.2025 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, New Delhi [‘Cit(A)’].

For Appellant: d. determining taxable income at Rs.75,60,590/-against NIL return

Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)

reasoning that the audit report in Form No. 10B had not been filed on or before the filing of the ITR under Section 139(1) of the Act. After rejection of the claim of exemption under section 11 of the Act, the Assessing Officer (CPC) taxed the entire gross receipts ... silent. The Ld. Counsel submitted that the filing of audit report in Form 10B online on or before filing the ITR under section 139(1) of the Act was one of the requirements to avail the benefit under section 11 and 12 of the Act. The requirement of filing

Anubhav Singhal, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-2(1)(1), Ghaziabad

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1640/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1640/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21 बनाम Anubhav Singhal Income Tax Officer, C/O Kapil Goel, Adv. Vs. Ward-2(1)(1), F-26/124, Sector-7, Ghaziabad. Rohini, Delhi. Pan No.Cfbps6318P अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 154Section 250

ITA No.1640/Del/2025 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Ciena India Private Limited, Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 4(2), Delhi

Accordingly, Ground No. 2 raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3715/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Madhumita Royciena India Private Vs. Dcit, Circle 4(2) Limited, Co Kochhar & C.R. Building, Co. Law Office, Suite No. Delhi – 110002 1120-1121, 11Th Floor, Tower A, Dlf Towers Jasola, New Friends Colony S.O Zakir Nagar So, South East, Delhi – 110025, "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaccc6131B Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Yishu Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S.K. Jadhav, CIT. DR

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(1)Section 234ASection 234CSection 36(1)(va)Section 43B

P a g e | 1 Ciena India Private Limited (AY: 2020-21) THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, DELHI

Suresh Kumar Mishra, New Delhi vs. ACIT, CC-25, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1769/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Manish Agarwalsuresh Kumar Mishra Vs. Acit, Cc-25 24 Lok Vihar Apartment Jhandwal Extension Vikas Puri, New Delhi – 110055 Delhi – 110018 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aalpm2008D Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Aggrawal, Sr. Adv &For Respondent: Ms. Amisha S. Gupt, CIT, (DR)

Section 115BSection 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 153Section 153ASection 69

such a case, the return of income filed under section 153A(1) of the said Act, would be construed to be one filedunder section 139(1) of the Act and the provisions of the said Act shall apply to the same accordingly. 8.5 The Honble High Court of Bombay ... return of income filed under section 153A(1) of the said Act, would be construed to be one filed under section 139(1) of the Act and the provisions of the Act shall apply to the same accordingly. A return filed under Section 153A takes the place of the original

Mohd Arif, Etawah vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(2)(5), Etwah, Etawah

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

ITA 271/AGR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Agra29 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2016-17] Mohd. Arif, Income Tax Officer, 68, Huiganj Pachraha, Etawah, Ward-2(2)(5), Income Tax Office, Etawah, Uttar Pradesh-206001 Vs Civil Lines, Etawah, Uttar Pradesh-207001 Pan-Anapa8542J Appellant Respondent

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 282Section 54Section 56(2)(vii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AGRA BENCH ‘DB’ AGRA (Through Physical/Virtual Hearing) BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Shri Abhishek Soin, Ludhiana vs. DCIT, CC-II, Ludhiana

The appeals are partly allowed

ITA 322/CHANDI/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh29 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 321 & 322/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11, 2011-12 Shri Abhishek Soin, The Dcit, C/O Sigma Cartons Pvt. Ltd., Vs Central Circle-Ii, Unit-Ii, Industrial Area-C, Ludhiana. Sua Road, Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Anbps9446A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Aditya Kumar, Ca Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.07.2025 Hybrid Hearing O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Aditya Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT DR

Section 10(38)Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 263

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ, च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, ‘A’ CHANDIGARH

Shri Abhishek Soin, Ludhiana vs. DCIT, CC-II, Ludhiana

The appeals are partly allowed

ITA 321/CHANDI/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh29 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Aditya Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT DR

Section 10(38)Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 263

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ, च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, ‘A’ CHANDIGARH

Darshit Gunwantbhai Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-1(2)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 571/AHD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2021-22 Darshit Gunantbhai Shah Ito, Ward-1(2)(1) B/2/236, Madhuvrund Society Vs. Ahmedabad. Ghatlodia Ahmedabad 380 061. Pan : Awmps 9760 R (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Hardik Vora, Advocate Assessee By : Shri Umesh Kumar Agrawal, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24/07/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/07/2025 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per Makarand V.Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”] Dated 25.01.2023 For The Assessment Year 2021– 22, Wherein The Disallowance Of Rs.4,67,802/- Made Under Section 43B Of The Act By The Was Confirmed.

For Appellant: Shri Umesh Kumar Agrawal, Sr.DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 250Section 43B

account but were reflected in Form 3CD under clause 26(B)(b) as not paid on or before the due date prescribed under section 139(1). 3.2 The CPC adjustment summary recorded the following: Sl. Particulars Amount in Amount in Proposed No. ITR Form 3CD Adjustment 1 There is inconsistency ... that the amount of Rs.4,67,802/- had in fact been paid through various challans before the due date of filing return under section 139(1), but due to inadvertent clerical error, the same was reported in clause 26(B)(b) instead of 26(B)(a). It was submitted that

Minesh Bipinbhai Patel, Vadodara vs. The Dy.CIT, Central Circle-1, Vadodara

In the result the appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 650/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarit(Ss)A No.23/Ahd/2024 Asstt.Year : 2015-16 & Asstt.Year 2016-17 Minesh Bipinbhai Patel The Dcit, Cent.Cir.1 10, Shantivan Society Vs. Race Course Sussen Tarsali Road Vadodara. Makarpura Vadodara 390 010. Pan : Acqpp 7756 G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr.Advocate Revenue By : Shri Sher Singh, Cit-Dr & Shri Hargovind Singh, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/07/2025 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr.AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT-DR and Shri Hargovind Singh, Sr.DR

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250

adjudication on merits. 3. Facts of the Case 3.1 For A.Y. 2015–16, the assessee had originally filed his return of income under section 139(1) of the Act on 31.08.2015, declaring total income of Rs.1,62,04,810/-. For A.Y. 2016–17, the original return under section 139(1 ... Rs.1,62,04,810/-. For A.Y. 2016–17, notice under section 143(2) was issued on 04.08.2017, treating the original return filed under section 139(1) as return in response to proceedings under section 153A. 3.3 During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer issued notices under sections

Kreate Konnect E Solutions Private Limited, Vadodara vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1950/AHD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2020-21 Kcreate Konnect E Solutions Dy. Cit, Cir.1(1)(1) Private Limited Vs. Vadodara. 291M 2Bd Floor, Green Villa-11 B/H. Abs Tower Old Padra Road Vadodara Pan : Aagck 1493 C (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Jigar Adhyaru, Ar Assessee By : Shri Hargovind Singh, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24/07/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/07/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Makarand V.Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 5, Chennai [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”] Dated 18.09.2024, Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2020– 21, Whereby The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Intimation Issued Under Section 143(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”] Dated 18.12.2021 Was Dismissed.

For Appellant: Shri Hargovind Singh, Sr.DR

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 143(1)

concessional regime was declared in the ITR itself and the return was filed within the extended due date under section 139(1). It was also contended that the assessee had filed Form 10-IC for A.Y. 2021–22 and that the default was inadvertent and procedural in nature ... relevant field in Part A–GEN of the return of income (ITR-6), which was filed on 04.11.2020 within the time prescribed under section 139(1) of the Act. The AR submitted that although Form No. 10-IC was not filed electronically for A.Y. 2020–21, the intention

Parthibaraja Arumugham, Salem vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Salem

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 912/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr.Sri Krishna, CAFor Respondent: Ms.Gauthami Manivasagam

Section 119Section 139(1)Section 271B

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी एबी टी. वक", "ाियक

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Aathmika Holdings Pvt Ltd, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stand dismissed and the

ITA 836/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr.Vikram VijayaraghavanFor Respondent: Mr.Shiva Srinivas, CIT

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 56(2)(x)Section 92C

Jawaharlal Gulabrai Tulsiani, Delhi vs. ACIT, Int. Tax Circle 4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all appeals filed by the respective assesses are allowed

ITA 538/MUM/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Khandelwal &For Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR

Section 147Section 149(1)(c)Section 234ASection 254

form of capital gain or interest or dividend has always been disclosed in the return of income filed in India. Fourth proviso to Section 139(1) of the Act requires that a person who is resident of India to disclose the details of foreign assets in the return of income ... assessee has signing authority. Even the Schedule FA of 2015 explains object behind various amendments made by the Finance Act 2012 in Section 139(1) which only refers to the cases of resident assessees. Thus, the assessee being a non-resident was not required to disclose any asset held outside