← 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)

Quetzal Buildtech Private Limited, Haryana vs. Income Tax Officer, Haryana

ITA 6409/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 234BSection 68Section 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘SMC”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.6409/Del/2025 Assessment

Ahlcon Parenternals (India) Limited, Rajasthan, India vs. ACIT, Central Circle - 31, Delhi

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

ITA 5279/DEL/2025[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Feb 2026AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganeshahlcon Parenterals (India) Ltd, Vs. Acit, Sp 917-918, Ahlon Parenterals Central Circle-31, India Ltd, Ajanta Chowk, Delhi Bhiwadi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaaca1112C

For Appellant: Shri Ketan K Ved, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 92C

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “E”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT

Atop Products Private Limited, Delhi vs. Au, Itd, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, Delhi

Accordingly, he issued a show cause notice dated 05.03.2025 show causing the assessee as to why the bad debts of ₹27,86,561/- should not be disallowed in the assessment

ITA 5012/DEL/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Feb 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganeshatop Products Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Dcit, A-118, Brotherhood Housing Circle-1(1), Society, Plot No. 17, Bodela, New Delhi Phase-Ii, Vikashpuri, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaaca7693Q

For Appellant: Shri Rajneesh Behari Mathur, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “E”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT

Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Circle, Pune, Pmt Building, Swargate vs. Shivai Vidya Prasarak Mandal, Thane

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2536/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Tanmay Milind PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar
Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)(b)Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 234A

provisions to section 139(44) 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 ... 1) of the Act or section 139(5) of the Act, the view beneficial to the assessee needs to be accepted and, since section 139(1) and section 139(5) are part of section 139 only and in this section 139 and sub-section (5) provides the mechanism to file

Ss58Slmdtgov Hrsecschool Staff Coop Thrift and Credit Society Limited, Salem vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Salem

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

ITA 2984/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2984/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Mr. P.M. Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 119(2)Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 80ASection 80P

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

Bhagwandas Surajkaran Somani HUF, Thane vs. Income Tax Officer, Thane

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 8629/MUM/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Feb 2026AY 2022-2023

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Ms. Dinkle HariaFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr.DR
Section 115B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “H(SMC)” BENCH : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI

Bhagwandas Surajkaran Somani HUF, Thane vs. Income Tax Officer, Thane

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 8628/MUM/2025[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Feb 2026AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Ms. Dinkle HariaFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr.DR
Section 115B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “H(SMC)” BENCH : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI

Bhagwandas Surajkaran Somani HUF, Thane vs. Income Tax Officer, Thane

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 8627/MUM/2025[2023-2024]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Feb 2026AY 2023-2024

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Ms. Dinkle HariaFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr.DR
Section 115B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “H(SMC)” BENCH : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI

Tabassum Abdulla Inamdar, Mumbai vs. DCIT 42(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6561/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Hirawat, CAFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 90

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT

Tin Tar Retail Corp, Mumbai vs. Assistant Comm.of Income Tax -Circle 17(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 6487/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra (CIT DR)
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 37(1)

facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of trading of designing garments and filed the return under section 139(1) of the Act. All three appeals are filed by the assessee which is related to the search and seizure action was occurred

Tin Tar Retail Corp, Mumbai vs. ACIT, CC-4(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 6486/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra (CIT DR)
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 37(1)

facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of trading of designing garments and filed the return under section 139(1) of the Act. All three appeals are filed by the assessee which is related to the search and seizure action was occurred

Tin Tar Retail Corp, Mumbai vs. ACIT Central Circle -4(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 6485/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra (CIT DR)
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 37(1)

facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of trading of designing garments and filed the return under section 139(1) of the Act. All three appeals are filed by the assessee which is related to the search and seizure action was occurred

Ajay Gupta, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-31, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5149/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M Balaganeshajay Gupta, Vs. Dcit, 35, Rajpura Road, Civil Central Circle-31, Lines, Majnu Ka Tilla New Delhi Area, Civil Lines, So North Delhi, (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aakpg6283H

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Rawal, CIT DR
Section 127Section 132Section 139(1)Section 144Section 153B(1)(b)Section 153C

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “E”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI M BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT

East Delhi Waste Processing Company Private Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT Circle 7(1), Delhi

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

ITA 3463/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Feb 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesheast Delhi Waste Processing Vs. Dcit, Company Pvt. Ltd, Circle-7(1), 221, Okhla Industrial Area, Delhi Phase-Iii, Okhla Industrial Estate, South Delhi, Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaaco7539D

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Rawal, CIT DR
Section 154Section 241(2)Section 242(2)Section 79

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “E”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT

Vicky Navani, Jabalpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3), Jabalpur, Ward ))

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

ITA 124/JAB/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur13 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 253(3)Section 271Section 271BSection 273BSection 275Section 44A

furnishing a declaration before the assessing officer and that too before the due date of filing the original return of income under section 139(1) are to be satisfied and both are mandatorily to be complied with. Accordingly, the question of law is answered in favour of the Revenue

Surya Pratap Singh Chauhan, Lucknow vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Lucknow

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

ITA 642/LKW/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow13 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2018-19 Surya Pratap Singh Chauhan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward- 68/422, Gandhi Nagar, Lucknow- 2(1), Lucknow-New 226001 Pan: Awgpc6261P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Rakesh Garg, Adv Revenue By: Smt. Sonal Singh, Jcit Dr Date Of Hearing: 01.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.02.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, Dated 7.07.2025 Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeals Of The Assessee That Were Filed Against The Assessment Order Passed By The Assessment Unit For The A.Y. 2018-19 Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144 On 3.03.2023. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “01. Because The Notice Issued Under Section 148 Has Been Issued By The Jao, Which Is Contrary To The Provisions Of Section 151A Of The Act, The Entire Assessment Framed Is Bad In Law Be Quashed. 02. Because The Notice Under Section 148 Having Been Issued On 23.03.2022, Beyond The Period Of Three Years & The Total Investment In Bit Coin Trading Is Of Rs.9,63,000/-, There Being No Profit On The Same On The Contrary Being Loss, The Entire Reopening Of The Assessment Is Without Proper Verification Of Facts, Based On Wrong Facts The Addition Of Rs.88,55,128/- Made By The Ao & Upheld By The Cit(A) Be Deleted. 03. Because The Cit(A), Nfac, Has Failed To Appreciate The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & Has Arbitrarily Upheld The Addition Of Rs.88,55,128/- Under Section 69 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 Being Unexplained Investment In Purchase & Sale Of Bitcoins, Which Addition Is Contrary To Facts, Bad In Law, The Addition Made Be Deleted.

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Sonal Singh, JCIT DR
Section 139Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 69

income from other sources, Rs. 4,500/- income from tuition and Rs. 620/- interest income). In his original return filed under section 139(1) on 16.07.2018. He, therefore, propose to initiate penalty on this account. 4. In response to the show cause notice issued by the AO, the assessee submitted

Vikas Vaishnav HUF, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 19(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 8125/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawalvikas Vaishnav Huf Vs Ito Ward 19(3)(1), Mumbai Office No. Lg 81 G, Lower Room No.405, 4Th Floor, Piramal Ground Floor, Express Zone Chamber, Lal Baugh, Parel, Mall, A Wingh, Western Mumbai-400012 Express Highway, Opp Adani Electricity, Malad (East) Mumbai-400097 Pan: Aalhv5953J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Himanshu Gandhi, Respondent By : Shri Sushil Shende (Sr Dr) Date Of Hearing : 09/02/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 13/02/2026 O R D E R Per: Anikesh Banerjee (Jm): The Instant Appeal Of The Assessee Filed Against The Order Of The Nfac, Delhi [For Brevity ‘The Ld. Cit(A)’], Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Brevity ‘The Act’) For Assessment Year 2023-24, Date Of Order 12.09.2025. The Impugned Order Emanated From The Order Of The Assessment

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Shende (SR DR)
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68Section 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL

Dagadudhondu Yeola Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Satana vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Nashik

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as per the terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 2326/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2326/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19 Dagadudhondu Yeola Nagari Vs. Income Tax Officer, Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Ward-1(1), Nashik At Post Satana, Nashik 423 301 Maharashtra Pan : Aabad2549P Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev MuthaFor Respondent: Shri Eknath Abhang
Section 10ASection 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 250Section 80P

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.2326/PUN/2025

National Insurance Company Limited, New Town vs. DCIT, Circle 5(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2806/KOL/2025[2023-2024]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Feb 2026AY 2023-2024

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 250Section 270ASection 37(1)Section 40C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘C’ BENCH AT KOLKATA Before SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA

National Insurance Company Limited, New Town vs. DCIT, Circle 5(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2804/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Feb 2026AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 250Section 270ASection 37(1)Section 40C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘C’ BENCH AT KOLKATA Before SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA