← 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)

Lalji Yadav, Lucknow vs. ITO-1(2), Lucknow

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 729/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow18 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2017-18 Lalji Yadav, Vs. Ito-1(2), 3/152A, Vivek Khand, Gomti Lucknow (New) Nagar, Lucknow, U.P.-226010 Pan:Aakpy2220J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Amit Kumar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.07.2025 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 Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Confirming The Penalty Levied Under Section 272A(1)(D) Levied By The Ito, Ward-9(1)(1), Lucknow Dated 27.01.2022. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. Because The Assessment Order Dated 10.12.2019 Passed U/S 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Giving Rise To The Penalty Proceedings U/S 272A(1)(D) Of The Act, Has Been Set Aside By The Hon'Ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow Bench 'A' Vide Order Dated 13.11.2024 Passed In Ita No. 448/Lkw/2024, Restoring The Matter To The Assessing Officer For Passing The Assessment Order Afresh, The Impugned Order Dated 09.10.2024 Passed By Ld. "Cit(A)" As Well As Penalty Order U/S 272A(1)(D) Do Not Survive & Consequently The Order Passed By The Lower Authorities Deserve To Be Set Aside. 2. Because The Order Appealed Against Is Contrary To Facts, Law & Principles Of Natural Justice. 3. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Delete Or Modify Any Of The Grounds Before Or At The Time Of Hearing Of Appeal.”

For Appellant: Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Kumar, DR
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 272A(1)(d)Section 69A

filed in its response. Moreover, his income was below taxable limits and therefore, he was under no obligation to file a return under section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act. The assessee contested the fact that there was any information in the possession of the ld. AO, in view

Ashok Kumar Agarwal and Ors HUF, Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 34, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Jul 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Ashok Kumar Agarwal & Ors Huf Acit, Circle 34, C/O S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Aaykar Bhavan Poorva, Advocates 2, Garstin Place, 2 Nd 110, Shanti Pally, 7 Th Floor, Vs. Floor, Suite No.203, Off Hare Eastern Metropolitian By Pass, Street, Kolkata-700001, Kolkata-700107, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaeha8352F Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Ar Revenue By : Shri Amuldeep Kaur, Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.07.2025

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Amuldeep Kaur, DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM

Bararankua Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Ltd., Purba Medinipur vs. I.T.O., Ward - 38(1), Kolkata, Paschim Mednipur

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

ITA 1310/KOL/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Jul 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 139(1)Section 148

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ “बी’’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH: KOLKATA "ी राजेश कुमार

Parappattu P A C C S Ltd Y 58, Kanyakumari vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 Nagercoil, Nagercoil

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 141/CHNY/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jul 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.141/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2019-20 Parappattu Paccs Ltd Y 58, The Income Tax Officer, No.11-65/3, Alvaar Nagar, Ward-1, Manavalakurichi S.O, Nagercoil. Kalkulam, Kanyakumari, Tamil Nadu-629 252. [Pan : Aabtp9691H] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr.M.Karunandham, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Mr.Bipin C.N, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.07.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Mr.M.Karunandham, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.Bipin C.N, CIT
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 69ASection 80ASection 80P

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, ’सी’ न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI माननीय श्री मनु कुमार धिरर

Snehasadan, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Exemption Ward 2(3), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2525/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kuamr Chauhan, Jm

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(6)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250

income under section139(1) of the Act. For the AY 2023-24 the due date for filing the return of income under section 139(1) was extended to 30.11.2023 and the claim of the Department is that the assessee should have filed Form-10B on or before 31.10.2023. Since

Hdfc Bank Ltd (Successor to Hdfc Ltd), Mumbai vs. DCIT-2(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1828/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Smt. Renu Jauhrihdfc Bank Limited Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of (As Successor To Housing Income-Tax-2(3)(1), Mumbai Development Corporation Room No.552, Aaykar Bhavan Finance Limited), M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Hdfc Bank House, Corporate Tax Department, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013 Pan: Aaach2702H Applicant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri J.D. MistriFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra, CIT DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 37(1)

brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income under Section 139(1) of the Act. The said return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act by the CPC, wherein certain additions/disallowances were made under various heads. The assessee, Housing Development Finance Corporation ... admitted fact that the assessee did not claim the said expenditure either in the original return of income filed under Section 139(1) or through a revised return. The said claim was raised for the first time before the Ld. CIT(A), who rejected the same by placing reliance

Bilaspur Model Education Society, Bilaspur vs. Income Tax Officer-1(1), Bilaspur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 321/RPR/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.321/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2022-23 Bilaspur Model Education Society, Hig. 8, Amaltas Colony, Near Mangla Chowk, Bilaspur (C.G.)-495 001 Pan: Aaajb1009Q .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(1), Bilaspur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 12A(1)(b)Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)

audit in Form No.10B was required to be furnished one month prior to the due date for filing the return of income under section 139(1) of the Act. But, admittedly, the appellant has not furnished such audit report at all. Therefore, exemption under section 11 was not allowable ... audit in Form No.10B was required to be furnished one month prior to the due date for filing the return of income under section 139(1) of the Act. Admittedly, the assessee had not furnished such audit report at all. Therefore, exemption under section 11 was not allowable

Sh. Rajesh Kumar Jain, Kota vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Kota

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA nos

ITA 641/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR
Section 132(1)Section 153ASection 69

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ehBk yky ehuk

Sh. Rajesh Kumar Jain, Kota vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Kota

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA nos

ITA 640/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR
Section 132(1)Section 153ASection 69

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ehBk yky ehuk

Sh. Rajesh Kumar Jain, Kota vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Kota

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA nos

ITA 639/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR
Section 132(1)Section 153ASection 69

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ehBk yky ehuk

Sh. Rajesh Kumar Jain, Kota vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Kota

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA nos

ITA 638/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR
Section 132(1)Section 153ASection 69

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ehBk yky ehuk

Sh. Rajesh Kumar Jain, Kota vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Kota

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA nos

ITA 637/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR
Section 132(1)Section 153ASection 69

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ehBk yky ehuk

Sh. Rajesh Kumar Jain, Kota vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Kota

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA nos

ITA 636/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR
Section 132(1)Section 153ASection 69

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ehBk yky ehuk

Sh. Rajesh Kumar Jain, Kota vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Kota

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA nos

ITA 635/JPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR
Section 132(1)Section 153ASection 69

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ehBk yky ehuk

Sh. Rajesh Kumar Jain, Kota vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Kota

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA nos

ITA 634/JPR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR
Section 132(1)Section 153ASection 69

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ehBk yky ehuk

Sh. Rajesh Kumar Jain, Kota vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Kota

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA nos

ITA 633/JPR/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR
Section 132(1)Section 153ASection 69

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ehBk yky ehuk

Mohan Ramchandani, Banglore vs. ACIT-Intl Tax-2 Ahemdabad, Ahmedabad Gujarat

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

ITA 1944/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2016-17 Mohan Ramchandani Acit-Intl Tax-2 Flat-11001 Boddaballapur Road Vs. Ahmedabad. Presting Monte Carlo Yelahanka Satelite Town So Bangalore North. Pan : Adgpr 0211 D (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Saurabh Gupta, Ar Assessee By : Shri Saresh Kartik Laxmanbhai, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/07/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/07/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

For Appellant: Shri Saresh Kartik Laxmanbhai, Sr.DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 54ESection 54FSection 54F(4)

assessee had neither utilized the net consideration for purchase or construction of a residential house before the due date for filing return under section 139(1) i.e., 31.07.2016, nor had he deposited the unutilized amount in the Capital Gains Account Scheme as required under section ... findings that the first substantial payment was made only on 17.01.2018, well beyond the due date of 31.07.2016 prescribed under section 139(1), and that no deposit was made in the Capital Gains Account Scheme. The Ld. CIT(A) further observed that the agreement dated 27.02.2017 was executed on stale

Dr. Grahams Homes, Kalimpong vs. ACIT (Exempt), Circle 31, Kolkata

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

ITA 669/KOL/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jul 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A) wherein the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed by upholding that the valid audit report in form no. 10B must be filed one month prior to the due date, failure to furnish such report in prescribed form result in disentitlement of the trust from claiming exemption u/s 11 and 12 of the Act.

Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ “ए’’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH: KOLKATA "ी "द"प

Rangamani Krishnan, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(2), Chennai

In the result all the five appeals filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 457/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R.Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 453, 454, 455, 456 & 457/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20 & Sa Nos.41, 42, 43, 44 & 45/Chny/2025 [In Ita Nos. 453, 454, 455, 456 & 457/Chny/2025]

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 131Section 142Section 142(1)Section 250Section 69

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,‘ ए’ "यायपीठ,चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एस एस िव"ने

Rangamani Krishnan, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(2), Chennai

In the result all the five appeals filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 456/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R.Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 453, 454, 455, 456 & 457/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20 & Sa Nos.41, 42, 43, 44 & 45/Chny/2025 [In Ita Nos. 453, 454, 455, 456 & 457/Chny/2025]

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 131Section 142Section 142(1)Section 250Section 69

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,‘ ए’ "यायपीठ,चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एस एस िव"ने