“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)

Home Construction Co, Ludhiana vs. DCIT Central Circle 1, Ludhiana

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 615/CHANDI/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Feb 2026AY 2022-2023

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 271A

assessee, M/s Home Construction Co., filed its return of Income for A.Y. 2022-23 declaring an income of Rs. 2,68,240 under Section 139(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The 2 case pertains to the Home Life Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Group, wherein a search and seizure operation

DCIT (International Taxation)-2, Hyderabad vs. Thogarchedu Subha Sri, Hyderabad

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1058/HYD/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Feb 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri BG Reddy, Advocate

Section 115A(1)(a)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 90(4)Section 90(5)

granted by the Ld. CIT(A) despite the fact that the assessee failed to file Form No.10F within the due date prescribed under section 139(1) of the Act. The Ld. DR submitted that the due date for filing the return of income in the case of the assessee ... ACIT/DCIT (ITA No.269/Viz/2021 dated 14.06.2022), wherein foreign tax credit was denied due to delayed filing of Form No.67 beyond the due date under section 139(1) of the Act. It was further contended that rectification under section 154 of the Act was not permissible in the present case, as there

Nikhil Banga Kalyan Samity, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Exempt, Kolkata

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

ITA 2807/KOL/2025[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Feb 2026AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 250

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

Panamarathupatty Range Primary and Middle School Employees Co-Op Society Ltd., Salem vs. ITO, Ward-1(6), Salem

ITA 3087/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. N. V. Krishnan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. ARV Sreenivasan, CIT

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 80P

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी मनु कुमार

Sankalp Society, Saharanpur vs. ITO(Exemption), Ghaziabad

ITA 332/DEL/2026[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 331/Del/2026 : Asstt. Year: 2014-15 Ita No. 332/Del/2026 : Asstt. Year: 2018-19 Sankalp Society, Vs Income Tax Officer(E), 1, Rulapi Vihar, Saharanpur, Hapur Chungi, Uttar Pradesh-247001 Ghaziabad-201002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaats3377A Assessee By: Sh. Pratiyush Jain, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.02.2026 Order These Assessee’S Twin Appeals For Assessment Years 2014- 15 & 2018-19 Arise Against The Addl./Jcit(A)-1, Ahmedabad’S Din & Order No. Itba/Apl/S/250/2025- 26/1084344501(1) & 1084344609(1) Dated 02.01.2026, In Proceedings U/S 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”), Respectively.

For Appellant: Sh. Pratiyush Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 11Section 139(1)Section 139(9)Section 143(1)

claim for the sole reason of belated filing of tax audit report Form 10B, on or before the due date of filing of section 139(1) return. The Revenue’s case accordingly is that the above compliance of timely filing of Form 10B tax audit report is mandatory. Case

Sankalp Society, Saharanpur vs. ITO(Exemption), Ghaziabad

ITA 331/DEL/2026[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Sh. Pratiyush Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 11Section 139(1)Section 139(9)Section 143(1)

P & R Engineering Services Private Limited., New Delhi vs. Circle 19(1), Delhi, DCIT, New Delhi, India

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4537/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2018-19] P & R Engineering Service Vs. Dcit Pvt. Ltd., 89, Lok Nayak Circle-19(1) Apartment, Rohini Courts, New Delhi S.O. Rohini Courts, North West Delhi, New Delhi- 110085. Pan-Aaccp0484E Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri V.K. Agarwal, Ar & Shri Hrithik Lamba, Adv. Respondent By Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 03.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 11.02.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 03.07.2025 Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Nfac/2017-18/10031831 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 11.02.2021 Passed U/S 143(3) R. W. Sections 143(3A) & 143(3B) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Has Claimed Deduction U/S 80-Ia Of The Act Of Inr 5,62,48,491/- Which Was Disallowed By The Ao For The Sole Reason That The Return Of Income Was Filed Belatedly On 30.03.2019 Though The Same Has To Be Filed Upto 31.10.2018 In Terms Of The Due Date As Per Section 139(1) Of The Act. Ld. Cit(A) Confirmed The Said Disallowance & Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee.

Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80Section 801ASection 80ASection 80I

income was filed belatedly on 30.03.2019 though the same has to be filed upto 31.10.2018 in terms of the due date as per section 139(1) of the Act. Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the said disallowance and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 3. Aggrieved by the order ... grossly erred on facts and in law in ignoring the submissions made before him that section 139(4) is an extension of section 139(1) and the ITR was duly filed within the time extended u/s 139(4). 7. That the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred on facts

Shring Construction Company Pvt. Ltd., Dehradun vs. DCIT, Circle-2, Muzaffarnagar

ITA 7057/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Naveen Chandraita No. 5226/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year: 2012-13 Ita No. 7057/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year: 2012-13 M/S Shring Construction Company Pvt. Vs Acit/Dcit, Ltd., D-245, Nehru Colony, Haridwar Circle-2, Road, Dehradun Muzaffarnagar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcr4560L Assessee By : Sh. Ankit Gupta, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.02.2026 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: These Assessee’S Twin Appeals Ita Nos. 5226/Del/2016 &

For Appellant: Sh. Ankit Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 40Section 68

that although the assessee had deducted TDS but the same could not be deposited on or before the prescribed “due” date of filing section 139(1) return. That being the clinching factual position, we are of the considered view that the assessee’s case is covered

M/S Shring Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd., Dehradun vs. ACIT, Muzaffarnagar

ITA 5226/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. Ankit Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 40Section 68

Nileshkumar M Bhalodi, Rajkot vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(1)(1), Rajkot

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 7/RJT/2026[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot10 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Ms Devina Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND DR. DINESH MOHAN

Pushpa Sunil Devikar, Nagpur vs. ITO Ward-4(4), Nagpur

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

ITA 717/NAG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur10 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad

For Appellant: Shri Shabbir Bohra &For Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr.DR

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 250Section 3Section 54FSection 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR “SMC” BENCH : NAGPUR (through virtual) BEFORE DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A.No.717/NAG/2025

Built Up, Pune vs. ADIT, Banglore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2531/PUN/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Feb 2026AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2019-20 Built Up Adit, Cpc, Bangalore 1, Samda Apartment, Vs. Dr Ketkar Margs, Ghodke Chowk, Pune – 411004 Pan: Aaefb6432D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri V L JainFor Respondent: Shri Chandra Vijay, CIT

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 80I

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI VINAY

Mc Coy Drugs Private Limited, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 10(2)(3), Mumbai

Appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6449/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri K. Shivaram, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Assessee by

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

sine bones of Rs 3,96,8037- solely on the ground that the appellant failed to conclusively establish timely filing of return under Section 139(1). 11. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax-(A), NFAC, Delhi failed to appreciate that the appellant had submitted the acknowledgment of return

ACIT-19(3), Mumbai vs. Hoshang Manekji Havewala, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed, and the cross- objection filed by the assessee is disposed of in the above terms

ITA 6211/MUM/2025[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2026AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A No.6192/Mum/2025 A.Y.: 1999-2000 I.T.A. No.6193/Mum/2025 A.Y.: 1997-1998 I.T.A. No.6194/Mum/2025 A.Y. : 2000-01

For Appellant: Shri Akshay ShahFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi (SR DR)

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANIKESH

ACIT-19(3), Mumbai vs. Hoshang Manekji Havewala, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed, and the cross- objection filed by the assessee is disposed of in the above terms

ITA 6209/MUM/2025[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2026AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A No.6192/Mum/2025 A.Y.: 1999-2000 I.T.A. No.6193/Mum/2025 A.Y.: 1997-1998 I.T.A. No.6194/Mum/2025 A.Y. : 2000-01

For Appellant: Shri Akshay ShahFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi (SR DR)

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANIKESH

ACIT-19(3), Mumbai vs. Hoshang Manekji Havewala, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed, and the cross- objection filed by the assessee is disposed of in the above terms

ITA 6195/MUM/2025[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2026AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A No.6192/Mum/2025 A.Y.: 1999-2000 I.T.A. No.6193/Mum/2025 A.Y.: 1997-1998 I.T.A. No.6194/Mum/2025 A.Y. : 2000-01

For Appellant: Shri Akshay ShahFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi (SR DR)

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANIKESH

ACIT-19(3), Mumbai vs. Hoshang Manekji Havewala, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed, and the cross- objection filed by the assessee is disposed of in the above terms

ITA 6194/MUM/2025[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2026AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A No.6192/Mum/2025 A.Y.: 1999-2000 I.T.A. No.6193/Mum/2025 A.Y.: 1997-1998 I.T.A. No.6194/Mum/2025 A.Y. : 2000-01

For Appellant: Shri Akshay ShahFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi (SR DR)

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANIKESH

ACIT-19(3), Mumbai vs. Hoshang Manekji Havewala, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed, and the cross- objection filed by the assessee is disposed of in the above terms

ITA 6193/MUM/2025[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2026AY 1997-98

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A No.6192/Mum/2025 A.Y.: 1999-2000 I.T.A. No.6193/Mum/2025 A.Y.: 1997-1998 I.T.A. No.6194/Mum/2025 A.Y. : 2000-01

For Appellant: Shri Akshay ShahFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi (SR DR)

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANIKESH

ACIT-19(3), Mumbai vs. Hoshang Manekji Havewala, Mumbai

ITA 6192/MUM/2025[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2026AY 1999-00

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANIKESH

Ekesh Gaurang Desai, Mumbai vs. Central Circle - 1(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6116/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarekesh Gaurang Desai Vs Acit Central Circle -1(1), Mumbai C-46, Pandurang Chs, A.B. 321, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Nair Road Near Juhu Post Mumbai 400020 Office, Juhu Mumbai-400049 Pan:Aibpd4569L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Dharangandhi, Adv & Ms. Vinita Nara Adv Respondent By : Shri Ritesh Misra (Cit Dr) Date Of Hearing : 29/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 10/02/2026 O R D E R Per: Anikesh Banerjee (Jm): The Instant Appeal Of The Assessee Filed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)-47, Mumbai [For Brevity ‘The Ld. Cit(A)’], Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (For Brevity ‘The Act’) For Assessment Year 2011-12, Date Of Order 28.07.2025. The Impugned Order Emanated From The Order Of The Ld. Income-Tax Officer Ward-22(1)(2), Mumbai

For Appellant: Shri DharanGandhi, Adv & Ms. Vinita Nara AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra (CIT DR)

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MAKARAND VASANT