← 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)

Indiano Chrome Private Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle 11(1), Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 212/KOL/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 May 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Dixit &For Respondent: Prakash Nath Barnwal, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250

income tax return and furthermore the income tax return and the said form was filed before the due date as prescribed under Section 139(1) of the Act for the relevant assessment year i.e. 2022-23. 25. That sub-section (7) provides that the said form is to be filed

Bengal Education Foundation, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Exemption, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 199/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.199/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Bengal Education Foundation…………….………………………..………….……Appellant 17/1, Rishi Bankim Chandra Road, Dum Dum, Kol-28. [Pan: Aactb1869Q] Vs. Ito, Ward-1(2), Exemption, Kolkata…..……....….….. ……………….........…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manish Tiwari, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Smt. Archana Gupta, Addl. Cit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 15, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 20, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 26.12.2024 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeal Addl/Jcit(A)-2, Pune [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Public Charitable Trust & Had Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2022-23 In Itr-7 On 02.11.2022 Under The Status Of Aop/Boi By Declaring Nil Income After Claiming Exemption U/S 11 Of The Act Amounting To Rs.1,15,12,715/-. The Said Return Of Income Was Processed By Cpc & Vide Intimation Order Dated 31.03.2023 A Demand Of Rs.50,28,260/- Had Been Raised After Denying The Assessee’S Claim Of Exemption U/S 11 Of The Act Made In The Return Of Income. Before Passing Of The Intimation Order U/S 143(1) Of The Act, The Cpc Had Sent Communication To The Assessee On 14.02.2023 Intimating The Proposed Adjustments.

Section 11Section 119(2)(b)Section 143(1)Section 250

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH KOLKATA Before Shri Rajesh

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1(1), Kolkata vs. Radheshyam Agarwala, Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue and cross objections of the assesse are dismissed

ITA 2607/KOL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Shri S.M.Surana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Kishore, CIT-DR
Section 153ASection 153CSection 270ASection 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1(1), Kolkata vs. Radheshyam Agarwala, Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue and cross objections of the assesse are dismissed

ITA 2606/KOL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Shri S.M.Surana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Kishore, CIT-DR
Section 153ASection 153CSection 270ASection 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1(1), Kolkata vs. Radheshyam Agarwala, Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue and cross objections of the assesse are dismissed

ITA 2605/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Shri S.M.Surana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Kishore, CIT-DR
Section 153ASection 153CSection 270ASection 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1(1), Kolkata vs. Radheshyam Agarwala, Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue and cross objections of the assesse are dismissed

ITA 2604/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Shri S.M.Surana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Kishore, CIT-DR
Section 153ASection 153CSection 270ASection 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1(1) Kolkata, Kolkata vs. Radheshyam Agarwala, Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue and cross objections of the assesse are dismissed

ITA 2603/KOL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Shri S.M.Surana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Kishore, CIT-DR
Section 153ASection 153CSection 270ASection 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT

Raghavan Ramanathan, Chennai vs. JCIT Non Corp Circle 7(1), Chennai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 2879/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr. N.Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs.Samantha Mullamudi, Addl
Section 115USection 139(1)

mentioned the date of filing of ITR in the table in reply dated 08/08/2024 reproduced above in Para G2-3, but mentioned Section 139(1) as the Section under which the ITR was filed. The Appellant has attached the acknowledgements of ITR in ITR-V. The ITRs have not been

Som Nath Virmani and Sons HUF, Haryana vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-4(1), Gurgaon, Haryana

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 5081/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshm/S. Som Nath Virmani & Vs. Income Tax Officer, Sons Huf, Ward-5(1), Flat No. 303, Soverign 1, Gurgaon Vatika City, Sector-49, Sohna Road, Gurgaon-122001 Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aanhs1927F Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv Shri Somit Aggarwal, Adv Revenue By: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 20/05/2025

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

ITA No.5081/Del/2024 M/s. Som Nath Virmani and Sons HUF INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI

The Satara Dcc Bank Staff Co-Op Credit Society Ltd, Satara vs. ACIT, Satara Circle, Satara

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 633/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.633/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 The Satara Dcc Bank Staff V The Asst. Commissioner Co-Op Credit Society Ltd., S. Of Income Tax, Satara S.No.523 A/1, Vijay Circle, Satara. Millenium, Shop No.2, Satara, Maharashtra – 415001. Pan: Aaaat0953G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Ms. Renuka Arunrao Ghatge Fca– Ar Revenue By Shri Vinodpawar,Irs – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 07/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19/05/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld.Commssioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Act, 1961, For The A.Y.2018-19, Dated 06.02.2025. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Id. Nfac-Cit (A), Delhi, Has Erred In Confirming The Action Of Ld. Assessing Officer (A.O.) In Making Addition Of Rs. 93,91,184/- On

Section 139(1)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

members are mainly employees of the ITA No.633/PUN/2025 [A] Satara District Cooperative Bank. For A.Y.2018-19, Assessee had filed Return of Income under section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 claiming deduction u/s.80P of the Act. Assessing Officer rejected assessee’s claim on account of interest earned from Satara

Kandalloor Service Co-Operative Bank Limited No2166, Alappuzha vs. Income Tax Officer, Alappuzha

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

ITA 234/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Sri.R.Krishnan, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Senior AR
Section 139(1)Section 250Section 80A(5)Section 80P

Income Tax Act, 1961, on the ground that the return of income was not filed within the due date prescribed under Section 139(1). 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the amendment to Section 80A(5), which made it mandatory to claim deductions

Kerala State Cooperative Employees Pension Board, Thiruvananthapuram vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemption Circle, Thiruvananthapuram

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

ITA 223/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K., Vp & Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am

For Appellant: Shri Amaljith P.J., CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 139Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 154Section 239Section 80A

refund due to the appellant. Admittedly, the appellant had not filed return of income either voluntarily under the provisions of section 139(1) of the Act or in response to the notice issued u/s. 142(1) of the Act. Thus there was no valid return of income for claiming refund

Jorg Roland Manfred Drechsel, Cochin vs. ITO, Non Corp Ward2(4) & Tps Kochi/, Kochi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 220/COCH/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George George K., Vp & Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh Lakshman, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154

Form 67 was not filed within the due date of filing of the return of income as specified under the provisions of section 139(1) of the Act. Admittedly, in the present case, Form No. 67 was not filed within the due date for filing of the return of income ... under the provisions of section 139(1) of the Act, but Form No. 67 was filed on 30.03.2021. The CPC, Bangalore had processed the return of income as on 24.12.2021, which means that Form No. 67 was very much available with the CPC, Bangalore. Therefore, the CPC, Bangalore cannot deny

Bindhumol Chandran Pillai Chandralayam, Alappuzha vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 & Tps, Alappuzha

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 215/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K., Vp & Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am

For Appellant: Shri Mathew Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)

Kerala State Government. The appellant is a registered wholesale agent of lottery tickets. No regular return of income under the provisions of section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) was filed by the 2 Bindhumol Chandran Pillai appellant. However, the Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Alappuzha

Chennithala Thripperumthura Service Co-Op Bank Limited, Chennithala vs. Income Tax Officer, Thiruvalla

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 814/COCH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessmentyear:2017-18 Chennithalathripperumthura Service Co-Op. Bank Limited Oripuramchennithala Mavelikara Vs. Alappuzha Ito Chennithala Thiruvalla Kerala 690 105 Pan No :Aaaac3524G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 44ASection 80P

were made by the assessee in a return of income filed by him. That return can be under Sections 139(1), 139(4), 142(1) or Section 148, and to be valid, had to be filed within the due date contemplated under those provisions. Under Section 80A(5), the claim ... furnish a return of his income for such assessment year on or before the due date specified in Section 139(1) of the IT Act. In other words, after 1.4.2018, even if the assessee makes his claim for deduction under Section 80P in a return filed within time under Sections

Trimbak Shripad Dharurkar, Pune vs. ITO Ward 4(4), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2633/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2633/Pun/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Trimbak Shripad Dharukar, Anand Apartments, 105 Moti Danpati, Narayan Peth, Pune 411030. Maharashtra. Pan: Aaqpd6788C Appellant/Assessee Assessee By Revenue By Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement V The Income Tax Officer, S Ward-4(4), Pune. Respondent / Revenue Smt. Deepa Khare – Ar Shri Madhan Thirmanpallil – Addl.Cit(Dr) 15/05/2025 16/05/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; Dated 19.11.2024 For

Section 10Section 10(10)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 250

parties and perused the records. In this case, Assessee is an individual. He filed Return of Income for A.Y.2018-19 on 18.08.2018 under section 139(1) of the Act. During the year in the Return of Income, assessee claimed Leave Encashment exempt under section 10(10AA) of the Act of Rs.9

Begum Abdul Shakur Bijapure, Satara vs. ITO Ward 1, Satara

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

ITA 2410/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 148ASection 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

DCIT., Central Circle-3(2), Hyderabad vs. Jodas Expoim Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 702/HYD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.702/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Dy. C.I.T Vs. M/S. Jodas Expoim (P) Ltd Central Circle 3(2) Siddipet, Telangana Hyderabad Pan:Aabcj8653L (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Ravi Bharadwaj, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 05/03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 16/05/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothis Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 7/5/2024 Arising From The Penalty Order Passed U/S 271Aa Of The I.T. Act, 1961 For The A.Y 2016-17. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1) Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Penalty Levied U/S 271Aa Of The Act Even Though The Assessee Failed To File Form 3Ceb As Mandated U/S 92E Of The Act Within The Time Prescribed U/S 139(1) Of The Act? 2) Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Penalty Levied U/S 271Aa Of The Act Even Though The Assessee Failed To Report

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Bharadwaj, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Srinath Sadanala, DR
Section 115JSection 133ASection 139(1)Section 233ASection 271ASection 92ASection 92CSection 92DSection 92E

ITA No 702 of 2024 JODAS EXPOIM P LTD आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX

Paschim Putiary Cooperative Credit Society Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 25(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 344/KOL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.344/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Paschim Putiary Cooperative Credit Society Samity Limited...….……….Appellant 328A, Nalini Bhawan, Banerjee Para Road, Kudghat, Kol-41. [Pan: Aabap7929B] Vs. Ito, Ward-25(1), Kolkata.………….....................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri G. Banerjee, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Archana Gupta, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 14, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 16, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Of The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2018-19 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.03.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Appeals, Nfac, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’]. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Co-Operative Society Registered Under West Bengal Co-Operative Societies Act, 2013 As Amended Up To Date. Assessee Filed Its Income Tax Return U/S 139 Of The Act For A.Y. 2018-19 On 30.03.2019. The Return Of The Assessee Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 & Thereafter The Assessee Received An Intimation On 25.06.2019 In Which An Amount Of Rs.3,50,338/- Was Disallowed By Deputy Director Of Income Tax, Cpc By Disallowing The Statutory Deduction U/S 80P Of The Act For Non- Submission Of Income Tax Return Within Due Date I.E. 31.08.2018. I.T.A. No.344/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Paschim Putiary Cooperative Credit Society Samity Limited

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

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH KOLKATA Before Shri Sonjoy

Sreenivasulu Sagaleti, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(2), Bengaluru

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2493/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahuandshri.Keshav Dubeyassessment Year :2018-19

For Appellant: Shri. Sandeep Chalapathy, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 54FSection 54F(1)Section 54F(4)

dated 10.10.2019, construction of the house was started in April, 2019 after the date of filing of return of income (10.-07.2018) under section 139(1) of the Act. Since the assessee has not purchased or constructed a new house during the year under consideration nor has deposited the untilised ... residential property of his spouse Smt. N. Mahalakshmi at Plot No.283, I Block, Banashankari 6th Stage, Bangalore. Assessee filed return of income under section 139(1) of the Act but the sale proceeds were not utilized within the due date of filing of return of income and deposited