← 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)

Riyaz Qureshi, Jhabua vs. Income Tax Officer, Jhabua

Appeals are allowed

ITA 664/IND/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore15 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(2)Section 142(1)Section 22(1)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

ciiccius.. OUR = or Have without reasonable cause failed to furnish it within the time allowed and the manner required by the side section 139(1) or by such notice. ader section *lHave without reasonable cause failed to comply with a notice uncer sect

Riyaz Qureshi, Jhabua vs. Income Tax Officer, Income Tax

Appeals are allowed

ITA 663/IND/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore15 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(2)Section 142(1)Section 22(1)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

ciiccius.. OUR = or Have without reasonable cause failed to furnish it within the time allowed and the manner required by the side section 139(1) or by such notice. ader section *lHave without reasonable cause failed to comply with a notice uncer sect

Fatimabai Hajimiya Kokani Pvt Trust., Nashik vs. ITO (Exep) Ward 1, Nashik

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

ITA 2373/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2373/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Mrs. Indira Adakil
Section 143(1)Section 250Section 5

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL

Miles Education Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-16(3), Hyderabad

ITA 153/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri A.V.Raghuram, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rahul Singhania, DR
Section 115BSection 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘B’ Bench, Hyderabad श्री रवीश सूद, माननीय न्याययक

Hari Om Rastogi, Fatehpur vs. ACIT (Central Circle), Allahabad

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 22/ALLD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad14 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Subhash Malguria & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 153ASection 69

I.T.A. No.20, 21 & 22/Alld/2025 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ALLAHABAD BENCH, ALLAHABAD BEFORE SHRI SUBHASH MALGURIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Hari Om Rastogi, Fatehpur vs. ACIT (Central Circle) Allahabad, Allahabad

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 21/ALLD/2025[2018]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad14 May 2025

Bench: Shri Subhash Malguria & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 153ASection 69

I.T.A. No.20, 21 & 22/Alld/2025 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ALLAHABAD BENCH, ALLAHABAD BEFORE SHRI SUBHASH MALGURIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Hari Om Rastogi, Fatehpur vs. ACIT (Central Circle), Allahabad

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 20/ALLD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad14 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Subhash Malguria & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 153ASection 69

I.T.A. No.20, 21 & 22/Alld/2025 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ALLAHABAD BENCH, ALLAHABAD BEFORE SHRI SUBHASH MALGURIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Fat East Trading Establishment, Kayamkulam vs. ITO, Ward No.1, Alappuzha

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 817/COCH/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 May 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Sreejith R., AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 271BSection 44Section 44A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., VP AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM

Income Tax Officer, Idukki vs. Marayoor Service Co-Operative Bank Limited No. 2022, Idukki

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

ITA 673/COCH/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm Assessment Year: 2018-19 The Income Tax Officer .......... Appellant First Floor, Mahima Owers, Temple Bypass Road, Thodupuzha, Idukki 685585 [Pan: Aacam0362Q] Vs. Marayoor Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. .......... Respondent Munnar-Udumalpet Road, Marayoor Keezhanthoor, Iddukki 685620 Appellant By: Shri Omanakuttan, Sr. D.R. Respondent By: Shri Ramesh Cherian, Advocate Date Of Hearing: 17.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.05.2025

For Appellant: Shri Omanakuttan, Sr. D.RFor Respondent: Shri Ramesh Cherian, Advocate
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 80ASection 80P

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JM Assessment

Edamalayar Service Cooperative Society IX 103A, Kothamangalam vs. ITO, Ward 1 and Tps, Thodupuzha

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

ITA 556/COCH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Sr.AR
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 148Section 80ASection 80A(5)Section 80P

formed with the object of lending money to its members. No regular return of income was filed under the provisions of section 139(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”). However, the Assessing Officer (“the AO”) based on the AIMS information that the 2 ITA No.556/Coch/2024. Edamalayar Service ... 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

M/S.Bodygear International P. Ltd, Ernakulam vs. The DCIT, Kochi

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

ITA 274/COCH/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 May 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Sri.Radhesh Bhatt, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Omanakuttan, Senior AR
Section 10BSection 10B(1)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Accountant Member & Shri Soundararajan K, Judicial

Kunhabdulla, Kozhikode vs. ITO Ward 2(2), Kozhikode

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

ITA 983/COCH/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm Assessment Year: 2012-13 Kunhabdulla .......... Appellant Theerkandiyil House, Chekkiyad Parakkadavu, Kozhikode 673509 [Pan: Bvzpk8798L] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Kozhikode .......... Respondent Appellant By: ------- None ------- Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 12.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.05.2025

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 44

case are that the appellant is an individual. No regular return of income was filed by the appellant under the provisions of section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). Based on the information that the appellant made cash deposit in the bank account during previous year

P L Tony, Kerala vs. DCIT, Thrissur

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed

ITA 860/COCH/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri C.B.M. Warrier, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JM

P L Tony, Kerala vs. DCIT, Thrissur

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed

ITA 859/COCH/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri C.B.M. Warrier, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JM

P L Tony, Kerala vs. DCIT, Thrissur

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed

ITA 858/COCH/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri C.B.M. Warrier, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JM

P L Tony, Kerala vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Thrissur

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed

ITA 857/COCH/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri C.B.M. Warrier, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JM

Vijay Kumar Jain, Bapu Nagar, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

ITA 407/JPR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: This Appellate Tribunal. He Is Feeling Dissatisfied With The Order Dated 24.02.2025 Whereby An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against Assessment Order Dated 08.12.2018, Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 143(3)/147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) Has Been Partly Allowed.

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Swapnil Parihar, JCIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 153A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B-Bench” JAIPUR Jh xxu xks

Super Crop Safe Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1552/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 80J

disallowed by the Assessing Officer for the reason that the return of income was not filed within the due date as stipulated under section 139(1) of the Act. The assessment was completed under Section 143(3) of the Act on 06.04.2021 at a total income of Rs.2 ... disallowed by the Assessing Officer for the reason that the return of income was not filed within the due date as prescribed under section 139(1) of the Act. 9.1 Shri S.N. Divatia, Ld. AR submitted that the assessee had filed its return belatedly under section 139

Patul Ganesh Bazar Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Ltd., Hooghly vs. ITO, Ward-24(1), Hooghly

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 481/KOL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Patul Ganesh Bazar Samabay Ito, Ward-24(1) Krishi Unnayan Samity Ltd. Opp. Aayakar Bhawan, Khadina Patul, Khanakul S.O., Hooghly, More, Chinsurah, Hooghly, Vs. West Bengal, 712406 West Bengal, 712102 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaeap5791J Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhry, Ar Revenue By : Shri Madhumita Das, Dr Date Of Hearing: 17.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.05.2025

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhry, ARFor Respondent: Shri Madhumita Das, DR
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 80Section 80P

which include deduction u/s 80P such deduction has to be allowed only if the return is filed within due date specified under sub-section 139(1) of the Act. In other words, if any return is filed beyond due date u/s 139(1) of the Act then no deduction

Murugan Doraisamy, Chennai vs. ITO, International Taxation Ward-1(2), Chennai

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

ITA 367/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 May 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.367/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2022-23 Murugan Doraisamy, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 16, 17 & 18, Appasamy Towers, International Taxation Ward 1(2), Sir Thiyagaraya Road, Pondy Bazaar, Chennai. T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. [Pan:Awkpm2217P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri P. Ranga Ramanujam, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 29.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14.05.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 28.01.2025 Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] For The Assessment Year 2022-23. 2. The Assessee Raised 10 Grounds Of Appeal, Amongst Which, The Only Short Point Raised For Consideration Whether The Assessing Officer Is 2

For Appellant: Shri P. Ranga Ramanujam, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT
Section 1Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54(1)Section 54(2)Section 54F

reason that the assessee did not deposit the net consideration in specific bank account within the specified time under section 139(1) of the Act. The Assessing Officer discussed the said issue in para 6 & 7 of the impugned order. We note that the assessee explained that he made ... consideration credited to the said capital gain account only on 03.10.2022, since is beyond the due date for filing return of income under section 139(1) of the Act, the Assessing Officer denied deduction claimed under section 54F of the Act. Having aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer