← 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)

Yuva Chintana Foundation, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemptions Ward 2, Bengaluru

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

ITA 301/BANG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Anoop Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian .S, JCIT-DR
Section 250Section 253(5)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY

R.D. Vohra HUF, New Delhi vs. PCIT, Faridabad

In the result, the application for condonation of delay of 165 days in filing

ITA 4948/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Rajkumar Gupta, CA & Shri J.PFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT (DR)
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 263

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL

ITO, Ward-18(), New Delhi vs. Nivia Agencies Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1009/DEL/2021[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2025AY 2002-03

Bench: MS. MADHUMITA ROY (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 139(1)Section 142Section 143(1)Section 144Section 148Section 250(6)Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’: NEW DELHI BEFORE MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH

Chadha Motors, Kurukshetra vs. ITO, Kurukshetra

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1145/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1145/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Chadha Motors, The Ito, बनाम Ladwa, Kurukshetra Kurukshetra 136135 Vs. "थायी लेखा सं./ Pan No: Aaifc0237B अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Hybrid Mode ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Ankush Sharma, Advocate (Virtual), राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr For Dr.Ranjit Kaur, Addl., Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 07.07.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08.07.2025 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, Am : Appeal In This Case Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 01.10.2024 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:

For Appellant: Sh. Ankush Sharma, Advocate (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR for Dr.Ranjit Kaur, Addl., Sr.DR
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 69A

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

Jugender Reddy Ananthula, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 1342/HYD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Us:

For Appellant: Shri G. Srinivasa Rao, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gurpreet Singh, Sr.DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 153Section 154Section 234ASection 3Section 4

parties, we proceed on the factual premises that the assessee had filed on 31.08.2015 his return of income for A.Y. 2014-15 under Section 139(1) of the Act. 15. As observed hereinabove, the original return of income filed by the assessee was processed as such u/s 143(1

Abusha Investment & Management Services LLP, Chennai vs. DCIT Non Corporate Circle 7(1), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3417/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Mr.Bhabagrahi Dash, CAFor Respondent: Mr.Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 2(47)Section 250Section 45(1)Section 45(4)

Closing Capital Balance NIL 8. During AY 2017-18, the assessee filed a return of income (RoI) in accordance with Section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") on 30th October 2017 admitting ‘NIL’ income and carry forwarded the loss of Rs.25,23,550/-. The RoI filed

ACIT-6(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Aditya Birla Sun Life Amc Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 792/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhailaditya Birla Sun Life Amc Ltd., Tower 1, Jupiter Mill Compound, 17Th Floor, One World Center, 841, Senapati Bapat Marg, ............... Appellant Mumbai - 400013 Pan : Aaacb6134D V/S

For Appellant: Shri Ronak DoshiFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 40

required to be deducted on the expenditure, and since the same was not paid on or before the due date specified under section 139(1) of the Act, accordingly in the return of income filed for the assessment year 2019-20, the assessee disallowed 30% of the amount of year

Aditya Birla Sun Life Amc Limited, Mumbai vs. Assessment Unit, Income-Tax Department, National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC), Delhi

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 494/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ronak DoshiFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 40

required to be deducted on the expenditure, and since the same was not paid on or before the due date specified under section 139(1) of the Act, accordingly in the return of income filed for the assessment year 2019-20, the assessee disallowed 30% of the amount of year

Garuda Construction and Engineering Limited, Mumbai, Maharashtra vs. DCIT, Aaykar Bhavan

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3253/MUM/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 43BSection 51

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (ACCOUNTANT

Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Company Limited, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 6(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 2844/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250

Appellant filed its original Return of Income ('ROI') for the captioned year on 23-Nov-18 vide e-filing acknowledgement no. 379397491231118 under section 139(1) of the Act declaring a total income of INR 96,40,64,290 and duly paid taxes on the same. 3. During

Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Company Limited, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 6(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 2843/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250

Appellant filed its original Return of Income ('ROI') for the captioned year on 23-Nov-18 vide e-filing acknowledgement no. 379397491231118 under section 139(1) of the Act declaring a total income of INR 96,40,64,290 and duly paid taxes on the same. 3. During

Special Executive Protection (India) Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 24(1), Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 2455/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2018-19 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Special Executive Protection (India) Pvt. Ltd., Ward-24(1), Wz-152/B, 2Nd Floor, Bal New Delhi Udyan Road Uttam Nagar, West Delhi, New Delhi Pan: Aafcs3642G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Nitin Gulati, Adv. Department By Sh. Sudeep Dabas, Sr. Dr

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)

effect that the corresponding due date has to be seen as per relevant statue than that of filing of section 139(1) return. The assessee’s case on the other hand quotes the case law Raj Kumar Bothra Vs. DCIT, (2025) 174 taxmann.com 1199 (Chhattisgarh) that no such disallowance could

S vs. Guarding Services Pvt Ltd, Haryanavs.ITO Ward 22(3), Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 2453/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2019-20 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Svs Guarding Services Pvt. Ltd., Ward-22(3), Bimla Tower, Plot No. 42/5, New Delhi Frist Floor, Sector-14, M.G. Road, Gurgaon Pan: Aafcs2823P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Manoj Kumar, Ca Department By Sh. Sudeep Dabas, Sr. Dr

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)

effect that the corresponding due date has to be seen as per relevant statue than that of filing of section 139(1) return. The assessee’s case on the other hand quotes the case law Raj Kumar Bothra Vs. DCIT, (2025) 174 taxmann.com 1199 (Chhattisgarh) that no such disallowance could

Anurag Sure, Hdyerabad vs. ITO (Int Taxn)-2, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 649/HYD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA, S VenugopalFor Respondent: Shri Pavitran Kumar J, Sr. AR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD “B” BENCH: HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANJUNATHA

Navodaya, Haripada Sahitya Mandir, Purulia vs. ITO, Ward 3(1), Asansol

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

ITA 404/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Jul 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri George Mathannavodaya, Haripada Sahitya Vs Ito, Ward-3(1), Asansol Mandir, East Lake Road, Purulia, W.B. Pan No. :Aabtn 5764 F (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.K.Kamaluddin, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Mrinmay Basak, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 07/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 07/07/2025 आदेश / O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 03.01.2025, Passed By The Addl./Jcit(A)-1, Nashik, For The Assessment Year 2017-2018. 2. Shri S.K.Kamaluddin, Ld.Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee & Shri Mrinmay Basak, Ld. Sr. Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. 3. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Assessee Had Not Filed Its Return Of Income. It Was The Submission That There Was No Monetary Requirement Of The Assessee To File Return Of Income Insofar As The Proviso To Section 10(23C) Of The Act Was Amended To Make It Compulsory For Filing Of Return Of Income Only From The Assessment Year 2023-2024. It Was The Submission That The Assessing Officer Denied The Assessee The Benefit Of Exemption U/S.10(23C)(Iiiad) Of The Act On The Ground That The Assessee Had Not Filed Its Return Of Income. Ld. Ar Also Relied Upon The Decision Of The Itat Indore Bench Of The Tribunal In The Case Of Harda Nagar Bal Vikas

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Kamaluddin, ARFor Respondent: Shri Mrinmay Basak, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 139(1)Section 142(1)

open to the assessee to decide whether it being filed its return of income or not. The provisions of Section 139(1) of the Act makes it compulsory for an assessee whose income exceeds the basic exempted limit to file its return of income. Here the assessee has not filed

Nanda Kumar Parthasarathy, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-15(1), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 853/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.Y. Sridhar, FCAFor Respondent: Mr. Gautham S. Mukundan
Section 139(1)Section 91

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

Shri Ramasamy Jayakumar, Kanchipuram vs. DCIT, Non Corp. Circle-17(1), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 852/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.S.P. ChidambaramFor Respondent: Mr.Gautham S. Mukundan
Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 90

India for the Assessment Year (AY) 2020-21. The assessee filed the original Return of Income (RoI) for AY 2020-21 under section 139(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") on 16th December 2020, declaring an income of Rs.58,04,949/- and claiming a Foreign Tax Credit

Mangal Tirth Estate Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward-4(1), Chennai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 30/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:30/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Mangal Tirth Estate Ltd., Income Tax Officer, 769, Spencer Plaza, Anna Salai, Vs. Corporate Ward- 4(1), Mount Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 002. [Pan:Aaacm-4614-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. N. V. Balaji, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Anitha, Addl. C.I.T. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 14.05.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 07.07.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Filed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeal, Addl/ Jcit (A)-4, Hyderabad, For The Assessment Year 2020-21, Vide Order Dated 07.11.2024. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Company Filed Its Return Of Income For The A.Y.2020-21 On 17.11.2020 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.11,20,57,920/-. The Return Of Income Was Processed By The Ao, Cpc, Bangalore On 29.12.2021 & Raised A Demand Of Rs.93,79,350/- By Denying The Beneficial Tax Rate As Per Section 115Baa Of The Act & By Applying The Tax Rate Of 30%.

For Appellant: Shri. N. V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl. C.I.T
Section 115BSection 119(2)(b)Section 154

benefit, such companies are required to :-6-: ITA. No.:30/Chny/2025 exercise the option in prescribed manner on or before due date specified under section 139(1) for furnishing the return of income. As per the rule 21AE of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, such option can be exercised by filing ... unambiguously declared in the tax audit report (Form 3CD) which was filed on 30-9-2022 i.e. before due date specified under section 139(1) of the Act, indicating the assessee's bona fide belief and commitment to the concessional tax regime. Therefore, there is a marked distinction between

Avinash S Sadamate, ACIT, Circle 3 3 1 Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Rashmi Infrastructure Developers Limited, Mumbai

In the result, both the Revenue's appeal and Cross

ITA 6605/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal / Jay Bhansali, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Uma Shankar Prasad, (CIT DR)
Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 801B(10)Section 801B(10)(c)

under sub- section (1) of section 139.)" 9.1 In this case, it is not in dispute that the assessee filed its return under section 139(1) wherein deduction was not claimed under section 80-IB.Subsequently, assessee filed revised return under section 139(5) wherein claim for deduction was raised. Provisions ... section 80AC do not lay down condition that deduction under section 80- IB must be claimed in return of income filed under section 139(1). Even otherwise, since assessee filed revised return under section 139(5) within stipulated time along with audit report and certificate in Form No.10CCB, there

Bhawani Singh, Jaipur vs. ITO WD 4(1), Jpr, Jaipur

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

ITA 471/JPR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Nikhilesh Kataria, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 144Section 147

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh