“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)

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 455/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

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 454/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

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(3), Chennai

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

ITA 453/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

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

The Dharapuram Agricultural Producers Cooperative Marketing Society Limited, Tirupur vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(4) Tirupur, Tirupur

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

ITA 1270/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1270/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 The Dharapuram Agricultural Producers Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Cooperative Marketing Society Limited, Ward 2(4), New No. 487, Old No. 280, Tirupur. Chinnakadai Street, Opp. Arasamaram Stop, Dharapuram, Tiruppur 638 702. [Pan:Aabat8601Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. A. Vijayalakshmi, Ca (Virtual) ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. V. Supraja, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 15.07.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17.07.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 13.03.2025 Passed By The Addl./Jcit(A)-1, Visakhapatnam For The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. The Assessee Raised 4 Grounds Of Appeal Amongst Which, The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A)

For Appellant: Ms. A. Vijayalakshmi, CA (virtual)For Respondent: Ms. V. Supraja, Addl.CIT

Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 80ASection 80P

which, the extended due date of filing of return was 31.10.2019. Since the assessee has not filed its return of income under section 139(1) of the Act, by invoking section 80AC of the Act, the CPC, Bengaluru disallowed the deduction claimed by the assessee under section ... invoking section 80AC of the Act for the reason that the assessee has not filed the return of income under section 139(1) of the Act within the extended due date by 31.10.2019. She further submits that considering the date of completion of audit under the Tamil Nadu Co- operative

Nesco Employees Gratuity Fund Trust, Balasore vs. ITO, Ward-1, Balasore

ITA 159/CTK/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack16 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Nihar Ranjan Biswal, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr.DR

Section 10Section 10(24)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 250

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, कटक न्यायपीठ, कटक IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY

Maya Charitable Foundation, Pune vs. ITO (Exemption), Pune

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

ITA 1255/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1255/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2016-17 Maya Charitable Foundation, V The Income Tax Officer, A/83, Pushpanjali Kasturba S Exemption Ward-1(2), Society, Near Kirti Hotel, Pune. Vishrantwadi, Pune - 411015. Maharashtra. Pan: Aaicm8617L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Sachin P.Kumar –Advocate Revenue By Smt. Shilpa Nc – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 03/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16/07/2025

Section 10Section 11Section 143(3)Section 250

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ”एस एम सी” "ायपीठ पुणेम"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “SMC” :: PUNE BEFORE MS.ASTHA

Maharanyam Sri Muralidhara Swamiji Vedha Ashram, Manthenavaripalem vs. CIT(Exemption), Hyderabad

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 708/HYD/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Jul 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: CA, K. SatyanarayanaFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 80GSection 80G(5)(iv)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD “A” BENCH: HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI MANJUNATHA G, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD

Maharanyam Sri Muralidhara Swamiji Vedha Ashram, Manthenavaripalem vs. CIT (Exemption), Hyderabad

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 707/HYD/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Jul 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: CA, K. SatyanarayanaFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 80GSection 80G(5)(iv)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD “A” BENCH: HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI MANJUNATHA G, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD

Iqbal Shaik, Nellore vs. ITO., Ward International Taxation, Nellore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 67/HYD/2025[2017-2018]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad16 Jul 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA, Kranthi Palivela And CA, MrudulathaFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR

Section 127Section 129Section 139(1)Section 142Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

case are that, the assessee did not file his return of income for the assessment year 2017-2018 within the time prescribed under section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short "the Act"]. On the basis of statement of financial transactions filed by the Bank

DCIT., Circle-1(1), Hyderabad vs. Creamline Dairy Products Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal ITA

ITA 1183/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA, K C Devdas And CA C Maheshwar ReddyFor Respondent: Sri Narender Kumar Naik, CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80J

income filed and also not furnished relevant Form 10DA along with original return of income on or before the due date provided under section 139(1) of the Act, disallowed the claim of deduction u/sec.80JJAA of Rs.30,09,085/- and added back to the total income. On appeal, the learned ... learned CIT(A) disallowed the said claim on the ground that, Form 10DA was filed beyond the due date provided under section 139(1) of the Act. Therefore, he submitted that the addition made by Assessing Officer should be deleted. 7. Shri Narender Kumar Naik, learned

Creamline Dairy Products Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal ITA

ITA 1157/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA, K C Devdas And CA C Maheshwar ReddyFor Respondent: Sri Narender Kumar Naik, CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80J

Creamline Dairy Products Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal ITA

ITA 1156/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA, K C Devdas And CA C Maheshwar ReddyFor Respondent: Sri Narender Kumar Naik, CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80J

Ayubali Khairbali Qureshi, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward, 16(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 6851/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Smt. Renu Jauhriayubali Khairbali Quresh Vs National Faceless Assessment 30-4/A/4, Almarwah Chs, Unit,Delhi / Ito, Ward No.16(2)(1), Millat Nagar, Andheri (W), Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 053 Mumbai-400 020 Pan: Aaepq2461P Applicant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri Bhagirat Ramawat (SR.DR.)

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 56(2)(x)

6851/Mum /2024 Ayubali Kharbali Qureshi 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed the return of income under section 139(1) and declared taxable income amounting to Rs.61,65,790/- from professional fees and Income from other sources. The case was selected for scrutiny through CASS

Thermo Fisher Scientific India P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 15(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2458/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna, Shri Amol MahajanFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 32(1)

section 139(3) of the Act, for carry forward of losses, the return should have been filed as per the provisions of section 139(1) of the Act. Further, the AO also referred to the provisions of section 80 of the Act. The learned DRP rejected the objections filed ... that for carried forward of unabsorbed depreciation, it was not necessary that the return should have been filed within the time allowed under section 139(1) read with section 139(3) of the Income-tax Act? (b) Whether ITAT was correct in law in holding that the provisions of section