← 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)

Abdul Shalam Mohamed Jameen, Pudukkottai vs. ITO Ward 1, Pudukkottai

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

ITA 725/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 725/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Abdul Shalam Mohamed Ito, Jameen, Vs. Ward -1, No.38, Kalii Nagar, 2Nd Street, Pudukkottai. Pudukkottai – 622 001. [Pan:Cnipm-9889-G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. S. Girish Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148A

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,‘ बी’ "ायपीठ,चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी मनु कुमार िग"र

Samiappan, Salem vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Salem

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 487/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:487/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Samiappan, Income Tax Officer, 37/31, Kalaimagal Street, Vs. Ward- 1(1), Swarnapuri, Salem – 636 007. Salem – 636 004. [Pan:Cdips-7997-B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/Appellant By : Mr. T. S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, F.C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Anitha, Addl. C.I.T. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 22.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 12.06.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha:

For Appellant: Mr. T. S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, F.C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl. C.I.T
Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 68

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘सी’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI. "ी मनु कुमार िग"र

DCIT (It) -3(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Jp Morgan India Smaller Companies Fund, Mumbai

Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the CIT(A). Ground No. 1, 2 and 3 raised by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1028/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SMT. RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Anish Thacker, Shri PranayFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(3)Section 250Section 90(2)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SMT. RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Deputy

Paras Rameshchandra Doshi, Rajkot vs. The PCIT - 1, Rajkot

ITA 280/RJT/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot11 Jun 2025AY 2013-14
Section 115BSection 132Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 69A

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

Eco Vision Properties Private Limited, Thrissur, Kerala vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1) & Tps, Thrissur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 59/COCH/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Jun 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaassessment Years: 2020-21 Eco Vision Properties Pvt Ltd Dcit, Circle-1(1) & Tps, V. Thirissur Edattukaran House, Varandarapilly, Thrissur, Kerala- 680303. Pan : Aadce2329J. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Vipin K K, Ca Respondent By : Smt. Leena Lal, Snr Ar. Date Of Hearing : 03.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.06.2025 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed Under Section 154 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961, By The Cpc, Bengaluru & Confirmed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), For The Assessment Year 2020–21 Vide Order Dated 28.11.2024. 2. The Primary Grievance Of The Assessee Is The Enhancement Of The Tax Rate From 25% To 30% By The Cpc Under Section 154, Despite The Assessee Being Otherwise Eligible For The Lower Tax Rate In Terms Of The Finance Act, 2019. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Domestic Company Engaged In Business & Had Filed Its Return Of Income

For Appellant: Shri Vipin K K, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Snr AR
Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154

business and had filed its return of income 2 Eco Vision Properties Pvt Ltd for the assessment year 2020–21 on 14.10.2020 under section 139(1) of the Act, declaring a total income of ₹59,85,700. While filing the return, the assessee claimed the benefit of concessional tax rate

Income Tax Officer, Bodhi Tower vs. Kumar Builders Project Pune Private Limited, Bund Garden

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 199/PUN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 80ISection 80P

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

A. Jayapalan, Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-3(2), Chennai

ITA 491/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.491/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Stay Application No.21/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Annamalai Jayapalan, 3/400, 10Th Street, Venkateshwara Nagar, Kottivakkam, Chennai-600 041. [Pan: Aadpj 3842 Q] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By V. The Dcit, Corporate Circle-3(2), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Mr.K. Meenatchi Sundaram, Ca प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से / Respondent By : Mr.Keerthi Narayanan, Jcit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.04.2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11.06.2025 आदेश / Order Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Ld.Cit(A)"), Delhi, Dated 29.01.2025 For The

For Respondent: Mr.Keerthi Narayanan, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'ए' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'A' BENCH: CHENNAI श्री एबी टी. वर्की, न्यायिक

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Non Corporate Circle-4, Coimbatore vs. The Tudiyalur Co-Operative Agricultural Services Limited, Coimbatore

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

ITA 468/CHNY/2025[2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Jun 2025

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 468/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2018-19 The Dcit, The Tudiyalur Co-Operative Non-Corporate Circle – 4, Vs. Agricultural Services Ltd., Coimbatore. No.1, Tudiyalur Mettupalayam Road, Coimbatore – 641 042. Pan: Aaaat 3838L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Jai V Vairav, Ca सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10.06.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.06.2025

For Appellant: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CITFor Respondent: Shri Jai V Vairav, CA
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253(3)Section 80ASection 80PSection 80P(4)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी जॉज" जॉज

Sanvedna Educational and Charitable Turst, Mumbai vs. ITO, Exemption Ward, Thane

In the result the appeal filed by the Assessee stands dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as granted above

ITA 2609/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2021-22 Sanvedna Educational & Ito, Exemption Ward, Charitable Trust Thane Room No.208,2Nd Floor, C/O Chandu Hansha Dalvi, Vs. House No. 52, Anand Koliwada, Reac, Thane Dativali Village, Diva(East), Mumbai-400602 District Thane, Mumbai- 400612 Pan: Aagts4216G (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Prayag Jha Revenue By : Shri Kavan Limbasiya, Ld. Sr.D.R. Date Of Hearing : 11.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.06.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 14.02.2025, Impugned Herein, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Center (Nfac)/ Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2021-22. 2. On Deliberation, The Assessee Has Claimed That There Was A Delay In Filing Of Form No. 10 For Claiming Benefit U/S 11 Of The Act & Therefore The Benefit U/S 11 Of The Act Has Been Denied By Both The Authorities Below.

For Appellant: Shri Prayag JhaFor Respondent: Shri Kavan Limbasiya, Ld. Sr.D.R
Section 11Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 250

deciding such applications: The return of income for the relevant assessment year has been filed on or before the due date specified under section 139(1) of the Act; The assessee has opted for taxation under section 115BAA in case condonation of delay is for Form

Raj Kumar, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-58(4), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3092/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Sapra, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 46ASection 48Section 54

amount of sale consideration has not been invested in the capital gain scheme, prior to due date of filing of return under section 139(1) of the Act and therefore, assessee is not entitled for deduction under section 54 of the Act. Secondly, construction of the flat was not completed ... wherein it has been held that sub- section(4) of Section 139 of the Act is in fact a proviso to Section 139(1) of the Act. Therefore, since the assessee has invested the sale proceeds in a residential house within the extended period of limitation, the capital gain

The Machilipatnam Postal Deptl & Gds Co-Op Credit Society Limited No H164, Machilipatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Machilipatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 249/VIZ/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam10 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Veeravalli Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.249/Viz/2025 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) The Machilipatnam Postal Deptl & Gds V. Income Tax Officer – Ward -1 Co-Op Credit Society Limited No. H164 Aayakar Bhavan, Parasupeta Machilipatnam – 521001 Machilipatnam – 521001 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aafat5514L] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69ASection 80ASection 80P

section 80AC of the Act and concluded that the assessee has not filed return of income with in the due date specified under section 139(1) of the Act and therefore not entitled to claim deduction under section 80P of the Act. 4. On being aggrieved by the order ... Finance Act, 2018 w.e.f. 01.04.2018 by imposing condition that the return of income should be filed before the due date specified under section 139(1) of the Act. This amendment to section 80AC of the Act is prospective and cannot be Page No. 6 I.T.A.No.249/VIZ/2025 The Machilipatnam Postal Deptl

Kuntamukkala Premary Agriculture Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd, G Konduru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3), Vijayawada

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

ITA 247/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam10 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Veeravalli Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.247/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) Kuntamukkala Primary Agriculture V. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 1(3) C.R. Building, 1St Floor Annex. Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd. G-2157, Kuntamukkala Pacs M.G. Road, Vijayawada – 520002 Kuntamukkala, G. Konduru Mandal Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh – 521229 [Pan: Aabak5873H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

case are, assessee is a society rendering services and providing credit facilities to its members. Assessee has not filed return of income under section 139(1) of the Act. Ld. Assessing Officer [hereinafter in short “Ld.AO"] issued notices under section 142(1) of the Act dated ... erred in appraising that the return filed by the assessee is an invalid return since the same is not filed under section 139(1) or 139(4) of the Act without considering that for the purpose of claiming deduction u/s 80P, the return of income is required to be filed

Health Foundation & Research Centre, Dahod vs. The ACIT, Circle-2, Exemption, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 483/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Sakar Sharma, ARFor Respondent: Shri Hargovind Singh, Sr.DR
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 12A(1)(b)Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

education and is running a hospital and nursing college. For the year under consideration, the assessee filed its return of income under section 139(1) on 02.11.2017, declaring total income at NIL. The return was selected for scrutiny assessment, and notices under section 143(2) and 142(1) were issued ... lower authorities. He submitted that the audit report in Form No. 10B was not filed within the due date prescribed under section 139(1) of the Act, and no application for condonation of delay had been filed before the jurisdictional Commissioner as contemplated under section

G770 Mettupalayam Paccs Ltd., Tiruvallur vs. ITO, Ncw-8(2), Chennai

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

ITA 767/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Hon’Ble S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.767/Chny/2025 िनधा9रण वष9 /Assessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri B. Suresh, C.A GHFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 80P

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ‘बी’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI माननीय "ी मनु कुमार िग

M/S. Cast Software India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 2403/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Sri Ramaraju N., A.RFor Respondent: Sri Balusamy N., D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 244ASection 250Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

ITA No.2403/Bang/2024 M/s. CAST Software India Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI

The Hazaribagh Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd, Hazaribag vs. ACIT, Hazaribag

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

ITA 158/RAN/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi09 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: BEFORES/SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Devesh Podar, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Rinku Singh, CIT DR
Section 11(1)Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)

Chaleshwar Temple Trust vs CIT, 207 ITR 368 (Bom), wherein, the Hon’ble High Court has categorically held that the provisions of section 139(1) and section 139(4) of the Act have to be read together and on such a reading, the inevitable conclusion is that a return made

Rupa Vimal Padaliya, Rajkot vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Rajkot

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

ITA 821/RJT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot09 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaarrester /Ita No. 821 /Rit/ 2024 (Fara / Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Hybrid Hearing)

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 69

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

Hirachand Damji Dand, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 16(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 1804/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan & Hirachand Damji Dand Vs. Acit Circle 16(1) A/704, Remi Biz Court, Plot No. 9, Aayakar Bhavan, Shah Industries Estate, Off Veera Mumbai-400 020 Desai Road, Azad Nagar, Andheri (West), Mumbai-400 053 Pan: Aaapd8985F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 139(1)Section 154Section 90

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAJ

Hirachand Damji Dand, Mumbai vs. ACIT-Circle 16(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 1803/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan & Hirachand Damji Dand Vs. Acit Circle 16(1) A/704, Remi Biz Court, Plot No. 9, Aayakar Bhavan, Shah Industries Estate, Off Veera Mumbai-400 020 Desai Road, Azad Nagar, Andheri (West), Mumbai-400 053 Pan: Aaapd8985F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 139(1)Section 154Section 90

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAJ

Samir Harish Divecha, Mumbai vs. Ward 42(1)(5), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4489/MUM/2024[2023-2024]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jun 2025AY 2023-2024

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing Of Return U/S 139(1). I.E. 31.10.2023 2. That The Ld. Cit(A) Vide Order U/S 250(6) Dated 15/05/2024 Has Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Ao Without Appreciating That Form 10 Ie Could Not Be Filed Before The Due Date Of Filing Of Return U/S 139(1) I.E. 31.10.2023 Due To Technical Glitch. 3. That The Order Passed U/S 250(6) Of The Income Tax Act, Is Bad In Law As The Requirement Of Filing Of Form 10Ie Before The Due Date Of Filing Of Return U/S 139(1) Is Directory In Nature Arid As Such The Benefit Of Lower Tax Rate Cannot Be Denied. 4. That The Order Passed U/S 250(6) Of The Income Tax Act, Is Bad In Law As Since The Adoption Of Lower Tax Rate As Per Section 115Bac Cannot Be Brought Under The Ambit Of Adjustment U/S 143(1) Which Covers 'Arithmetical Error, Incorrect Claim, Disallowance Of Loss, Disallowance Of Expenditure, Disallowance Of Deduction Or Addition Of Income Appearing In Form 26As Or Form 16A”.

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 250(6)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘H(SMC)‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA, ACCOUNTANT