← 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)

Sis Cash Services Private Limited, Patna vs. ADIT, CPC, Bangalore

ITA 240/PAT/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Patna26 May 2025AY 2020-21
For Appellant: Kavita Jha, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Ashwani Kr. Singal, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 43B

NFAC erred in not appreciating that employees contribution had been deposited before the due date of filing return of income as prescribed under section 139(1) of the Act and the same is, therefore, an allowable expenditure.” 2. Before us, the Ld. AR argued at length with the help ... relevant assessment year before the due date under the PF/ESI Acts. However, such contributions were deposited before the Assessee filed returns under Section 139 (1) of the IT Act. The ITAT relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Checkmate Services (P.) Ltd. v. CIT _held that

Jhl Trading Limited Liability Partnership, Kochi vs. DCIT, Corporate Cir 1(1), Kochi

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

ITA 17/COCH/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin26 May 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri.Job Abraham & Sri.Ajay V.Anand, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Sri.Sundarasan S, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Accountant Member & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

Koshambh Charitable Trust, Vadodara vs. CPC, Bangalore Present Jurisdiction the ITO, Exemption Ward, Vadodara

In the result, the above ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 444/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay R. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Veerbadram Vislavath, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)(b)Section 139Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

held that requirement of filing Form 10/10B is merely directory in nature and failure to furnish Form 10/10B before due date prescribed under Section 139(1) of the Act cannot be so fatal so as to deny very claim of exemption under Section

Shankarlal Kundanmal Parik, Kolhapur vs. DCIT, Circle 1, Kolhapur

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

ITA 400/PUN/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 May 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Respondent: Shri Milind Debaje
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 80Section 801ASection 80I

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

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemption Circle, Aurangabad, Near Holy Cross English School vs. The Nanded Sikhgurudwara Sachkhand Hazur Sahib, Abchalnagar

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 809/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar CIT-DR
Section 10Section 139Section 143(2)

furnishing a declaration before the assessing officer and that too before the due date of filing the original return of income under section 139(1) are to be satisfied and both are mandatorily to be complied with. Accordingly, the question of law is answered in favour of the Revenue

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemption Circle, Aurangabad, Near Holy Cross English School vs. The Nanded Sikhgurudwara Sachkhand Hazur Sahib, Apchalnagar

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 808/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar CIT-DR
Section 10Section 139Section 143(2)

furnishing a declaration before the assessing officer and that too before the due date of filing the original return of income under section 139(1) are to be satisfied and both are mandatorily to be complied with. Accordingly, the question of law is answered in favour of the Revenue

Siva Sakthi Sathya Sai Charitable Trust, Chennai vs. ITO, Exemptions Ward 4, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2944/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2944/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Siva Sakthi Sathya Sai Charitable Income Tax Officer, Trust, Vs. Exemptions Ward 4, 3/16, Ponniamman Koil Street, Chennai. Alapakkam, Chennai – 600 116. [Pan: Aadts-5679-J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. M.D. Vijay Kumar, J.C.I.T
Section 11Section 139

impugned order passed without considering the analogy of revised return having an over riding effect on the original return in terms of Section 139( 1) / 139( 4) of the Act by effacement theory, would negate the findings in relation there to. 5. The NFAC, Delhi failed to appreciate that

Kogod Basavaraju Jayachandra, Hassan vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Bangalore

In the result the ITA No

ITA 1618/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Shri.Shivanand Kalakeri, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 132(4)Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153CSection 234A

noted that the said cash amount has not been included by the assessee while filing return of income under section 139(1) of the Act. Accordingly, the same is treated as undisclosed income and added to the total income u/s 69A of the Act.. The cash deposit of Rs.1

Kogod Basavaraju Jayachandra, Hassan vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Bangalore

ITA 1617/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

Section 132(4)Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153CSection 234A

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "A" BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI. SOUNDARARAJAN K, JUDICIAL MEMBER

ACIT Central Circle-3, Thane vs. Arun Kumar Pillai, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed for statistical purpose

ITA 1942/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri. Nishchit GandhiFor Respondent: DR. K. R. Subhash (CIT DR)
Section 127Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 2(22)(e)Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM

ACIT, Central Circle -3, Thane vs. Arun Kumar Pillai, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed for statistical purpose

ITA 1941/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri. Nishchit GandhiFor Respondent: DR. K. R. Subhash (CIT DR)
Section 127Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 2(22)(e)Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM

Asst Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -3, Thane vs. Arun Kumar Pillai, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed for statistical purpose

ITA 1940/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri. Nishchit GandhiFor Respondent: DR. K. R. Subhash (CIT DR)
Section 127Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 2(22)(e)Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM

Su Prabhat Co Operative Housing Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

The appeal of the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 1930/MUM/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 May 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2020-21 Suprabhat Co-Operative Income Tax Officer, Ward Housing Society 19(3)(1), Mumbai 76, Suprabhat Co-Operative Pratishtha Bhavan, 3Rd & 4Th Vs. Housing Society Ltd, Bhulabhai Floor, 101, M.K. Road, Desai Road, Walkeshwar 400026 Mumbai 400020 Pan: Aaaas5937P (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri. Rajendra Bhende, Ca Revenue By : Smt. Smitha V. Nair (Cit Dr) Date Of Hearing : 15.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.05.2025 O R D E R Per: Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 26.12.2024, Impugned Herein, Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeal Addl./Jcit (A)-1 Bengaluru/ U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2020-21. 2. Considering The Reason For Delay Of 21 Days In Filing Of The Instant Appeal As Stated By The Assessee Which Is Duly Supported By Duly Sworn Affidavit, Prima Facie Appears To Be Bonafide, Genuine & Un-Intentional, Thus, The Delay Of 21 Days Is Condoned.

For Appellant: Shri. Rajendra Bhende, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Smitha V. Nair (CIT DR)
Section 10B(8)Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(1)Section 80P(2)(d)

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year

Uttaranchal Bahuuddeshiya Vitta Evam Vikas Nigam, Dehradun vs. ITO, W- 1(1)(2), Dehradun

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 127/DDN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun23 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraिनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 बनाम Uttaranchal Bahuuddeshiya Vitta Income Tax Officer, Evam Vikash Nigam, Vs. Ward-1(1)(2), 13, H.N. Janjati Nideshalya, Bhagat Subhash Road, Singh Colony, Adhoiwala, Dehradun, Uttarakhand. Dehradun, Uttarakhand. Pan No.Aaacu6529K अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: Uttaranchal Bahuuddesiiya Vitt Evam
Section 10Section 10(268)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148

ITA No.127/DDN/2024 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “DB” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Punjab Small Industries and Export Corporation Ltd., Chandigarh vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1), Chandigarh

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 627/CHANDI/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vineet Krishan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 40Section 40aSection 43B

deduction in the year of accrual, only if the payment is made on or before the due date of filing the return under Section 139(1). Admittedly, in the present case, the due date for AY 2016–17 was 17.10.2016, whereas the assessee made the payment on 28.10.2016. Thus

Wildernest Better Living & Maintenance Co-Operative Society Limited, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(1), Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 856/PUN/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 May 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.856/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Wildernest Better Living V The Income Tax Officer, Maintenance Co-Operative S Ward-6(1), Pune. Society Limited, Plot No.58, 59 & 60, Woldernest Society, Khadakwasla, Taluka Haveli, Pune – 411024. Maharashtra. Pan: Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Arpit Dnyandeo Dambhare & Shri Deepak Sasar – Ca’S Revenue By Shri Madhan Thirmanpalli – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 15/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23/05/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Addl./Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal), Panaji Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2021-22 Dated

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ”एस एम सी” "ायपी ठपुणेम"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “SMC” :: PUNE BEFORE DR.DIPAK

Kalpana Vijay Kadam, Pune vs. ITO, Ward 2(2), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is Partly Allowed

ITA 841/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.841/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Kalpana Vijay Kadam, V The Income Tax Officer, Fi 13, Janki Heights, S.No.250, S. Ward-2(2), Pune. Baner D P Road, Aundh, Pune – 411007. Maharashtra. Pan: Axzpk4350P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Suhas P. Bora – Ar Revenue By Shri Manish Mehta – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 15/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23/05/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’), Dated 06.02.2025 For The A.Y.2016-17. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. On The Facts & In Law, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)] Erred In Passing An Ex-Parte Order Without Affording A Reasonable Opportunity To The Appellant. The Order Was Solely Based On The Observations Of The Assessing Officer (Ao) In The

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 69C

parties and perused the records. In this case, admittedly assessee is an individual and had not filed Return of Income for A.Y.2016-17 under section 139(1) of the Act. 4.1 We have perused the order u/s.148A(d) of the Act, dated 16.03.2023 which was duly approved by Principal Chief Commissioner

Desai Infra Projects(I) Private Limited, Pune vs. PCIT, Central Pune, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1851/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. Pathank, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 3Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “A” BENCH : PUNE BEFORE DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND Ms. ASTHA CHANDRA

China Kunlun Contracting and Engineering Corporation, Mumbai vs. DDIT (CPC), Bengaluru

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

ITA 3778/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Ms Smita Joshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash (SR. DR)
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 54

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

Akums Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Limited, New Delhi vs. NFAC, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5111/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 35

issued by the DSIR. Since the said Form was not issued by the DSIR to the assessee before filing of the ITR under section 139(1) of the Act; therefore, the assessee claimed deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act as per the audited books of accounts ... revised ITR provided under section 139(5) of the Act for AY 2020-21 expired on 31.03.2021, even before filing the ITR under section 139(1) of the Act. Therefore, the said ITR filed under section 139(1) of the Act could not be revised online on the Income