← 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)

Odyssey Corporation Limited, Mumbai vs. Dict Circle 2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 808/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 808/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2020-21) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 807/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2021-22) Odyssey Corporation Ltd. B/102, Haridarshan Bldg., Kandivali West S. O Mumbai, Maharashtra- 400067 V/S. बनाम Dcit-Circle 2(3)(1), Mumbai Room No. 552, 5Th Floor, Ayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai, Maharashtra- 400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaco0463C Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी निर्धारिती की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Vipul Joshi A/W Ms. Dinkle Hariya राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri Yogesh Kumar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing 08.05.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 30.06.2025

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Joshi a/w Ms. DinkleFor Respondent: Shri Yogesh Kumar
Section 115BSection 115JSection 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 250

conditions are satisfied: i) The return of income for AY 2020-21 has been filed on or before the due date specified under section 139(1) of the Act; ii) The assessee company has opted for taxation u/s 115BAA of the Act in (e) of "Filing Status" in "Part

Odyssey Corporation Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 807/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 808/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2020-21) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 807/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2021-22) Odyssey Corporation Ltd. B/102, Haridarshan Bldg., Kandivali West S. O Mumbai, Maharashtra- 400067 V/S. बनाम Dcit-Circle 2(3)(1), Room No. 552, 5Th Floor, Ayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai, Maharashtra- 400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaco0463C Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी निर्धारिती की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Vipul Joshi A/W Ms. Dinkle Hariya राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri Yogesh Kumar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing 08.05.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 30.06.2025 आदेश / Order Page 2

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Joshi a/w Ms. DinkleFor Respondent: Shri Yogesh Kumar
Section 115BSection 115JSection 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 250

conditions are satisfied: i) The return of income for AY 2020-21 has been filed on or before the due date specified under section 139(1) of the Act; ii) The assessee company has opted for taxation u/s 115BAA of the Act in (e) of "Filing Status" in "Part

Marvelous Cement Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 16(4), New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4099/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms.Madhumita Roy & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Marvellous Cement Pvt.Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, Flat No.305, 3Rd Floor, Ward-16(4), Bakshi House, 40-41 Nehru New Delhi Place, New Delhi-110019. Pan-Aaecm9931F Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2018-19] Marvellous Cement Pvt.Ltd., Vs National E-Assessment Flat No.305, 3Rd Floor, Centre, New Delhi Bakshi House, 40-41 Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019. Pan-Aaecm9931F Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Ashwani Kumar, Ca & Shri Ankur Agarwal, Ca Respondent By Shri Virender Kumar Singh, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 05.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30.06.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : Both The Captioned Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against Two Separate Orders, Both Dated 22.07.2024 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi [“Ld.Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Cit(A), Delhi- 6/10624/2019-20 & Appeal No. Nfac/2017-18/10022053 Respectively, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”]. Both The Appeals Are Arising From The Assessment Orders, Dated 24.12.2019 U/S 143(3)/147 Of The Act & Dt. 15.09.2020

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

ITA No.4099 & 4100/Del/2024 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “E” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE MS.MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI