“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)

Mahesh Edible Oil Industries Limited, Delhi vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Agra

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 115/AGR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Agra25 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.113/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.114/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.115/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.116/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 5. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.117/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 6. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.118/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 7. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.119/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S Mahesh Edible Oil Industries Ltd. Acit-Central Circle बनाम/ 3/14-A, Jungpura-B Agra. Vs. New Delhi – 110 014. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccm-7102-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 8. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.157/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) &

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Gupta (Adv.), Sh. SomilFor Respondent: Sh. Sukesh Kumar Jain, Ld. CIT-DR

Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 145Section 153ASection 37(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “DB” BENCH, AGRA BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM AND HON’BLE

Mahesh Edible Oil Industries Limited, Delhi vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Agra

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 114/AGR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Agra25 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Gupta (Adv.), Sh. SomilFor Respondent: Sh. Sukesh Kumar Jain, Ld. CIT-DR

Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 145Section 153ASection 37(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “DB” BENCH, AGRA BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM AND HON’BLE

Mahesh Edible Oil Industries Limited, Delhi vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Agra

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 113/AGR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Agra25 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Gupta (Adv.), Sh. SomilFor Respondent: Sh. Sukesh Kumar Jain, Ld. CIT-DR

Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 145Section 153ASection 37(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “DB” BENCH, AGRA BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM AND HON’BLE

General Industrial Contros Ltd., Pune vs. DCIT Circle 8, Pune

In the result, the order of the CIT(A) is set aside, and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 38/PUN/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Apr 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamore

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

date of filing of Return of Income u/s.139(1) was 15.03.2022, thus, the Return of Income was filed within the time mentioned under section 139(1) of the Act. However, Assessee filed Form No.10-IC in physical form on 11.11.2022, then Assessee filed Form No.10-IC electronically on 01.11.2023. ITA No.38/PUN/2025 ... conditions are satisfied: 1) The return of income for relevant assessment year has been filed on or before the due date specified under section 139(1) of the Act; ii) The assessee company has opted for taxation u/s 115BAA of the Act in item (e) of "Filing Status" in "Part

Rais Nasir Shekh, Aurangabad vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Aurangabad

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

ITA 257/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.257/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)Section 69A

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

Jagadguru Panchacharya Education Society, Kolhapur vs. ITO Exemption Ward, Kolhapur

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

ITA 2683/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Sanket M. JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)

that the assessee is a trust and the return of income for A.Y. 2018-19, was furnished within the prescribed time limit under Section 139(1) of the Act on 22nd August, 2018. The assessee claimed exemption under Section 11 of the Act but CPC denied the exemption because audit

Mr. Anguraju Sengottuvelan, Salem vs. ITO, Ward-1, Salem

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

ITA 567/CHNY/2025[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Chennai25 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.567/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Mr. Anguraju Sengottuvelan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 1, Maruthi Vilas, North Street, Ward 1(3), High School Road, Velur, Salem. Namakkal 638 182. [Pan:Aysps6739A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : None ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M.P. Guru Prasad, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 22.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.04.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 15.05.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 210 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Affidavit

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri M.P. Guru Prasad, Addl. CIT

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148Section 69A

support of the contention of the assessee. When the assessee has not filed his return of income within the meaning of section 139(1) of the Act, notice under section 143(2) of the Act cannot be issued to him and also scrutiny assessment cannot be done. Therefore, the contention

Selvam Mageshwari, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-5(3), Chennai

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

ITA 546/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 546/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Selvam Mageshwari, The Income Tax Officer, No.29, Shastri Street, Vs. Non-Corporate Ward 5(3), Moopanar Nagar, Korukkupet, Chennai – 600 006. Chennai – 600 021. [Pan:Agqpm-7517-C] (""यथ"/Respondent) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant)

For Appellant: Mr. G.Akash, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl.CIT

Section 139(1)Section 144Section 148

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

Pappathi, Pudukkottai vs. ITO, Ward-2, Pudukkottai

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

ITA 537/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:537/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Pappathi, Ito, No.7/26, Raja Street Vs. Ward 2, Aranthangi, Pudukkottai – 614 616. Pudukkottai – 614 616. [Pan: Akgpp-6709-H] (""यथ"/Respondent) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. Y.Sridhar, F.C.A. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Anitha, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25.04.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha:

For Appellant: Ms. Y.Sridhar, F.C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl.CIT

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 69A

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

Sree Venkateshwara Souharda Credit Co-Operative Limited, Tumkur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Tumkur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2339/BANG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Aprameya K, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Dept

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154(7)Section 249Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

only. 3. The CPC while processing the return found that as per section 139(1) of the Act, the due date for filing return of income was on or before the 31st August 2019 whereas the assessee filed return after the due date as on 25th September 2019. Hence ... argued that the assessee had not filed its return of income within the due date as prescribed under section 139(1) of the Act. While the assessee claimed that it had filed the return on 25.09.2019 and relied on the CBDT's extension of the due date

Yudhishtir Cooperative Housing Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 42(1)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 1784/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeyudhishtir Co-Operative Vs Jao, Ward Mum-W-42(1)(4), Housing Society Ltd, Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra East, Anand Nagar, N.L. Complex, Mumbai-400 051 Dahisar (East), Mumbai-400 068 Pan: Aaaay4170G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: ShriVidyadhar KhandekarFor Respondent: Shri Asif Kamali (SR. DR.)

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “J(SMC)”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI

Vinod Kumar Chugh, Jaipur vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(3), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 207/JPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

Section 144Section 147Section 274

total income, consisting of pension and interest income, was below the basic exemption limit as prescribed under the Income Tax Act. As per section 139(1), an individual is required to file a return of income only if the total income after deductions exceeds the maximum amount not chargeable ... brief facts of the case are that for the year under consideration the assessee has not filed voluntary return as per provision of section 139(1) of the Act. For the year under consideration the ld. AO was in possession of information that assessee has deposited cash in his bank

Rajasthan State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, Jaipur vs. ACIT-Cercle 6, Jaipur

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

ITA 234/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumar

For Appellant: Mr. Rohan Chatter, Adv., Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mrs. Swapnil Parihar, JCIT, Ld. DR

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR BENCH “B”, JAIPUR BEFORE SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI NARINDER KUMAR

Rajasthan State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur

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

ITA 233/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumar

For Appellant: Mr. Rohan Chatter, Adv., Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mrs. Swapnil Parihar, JCIT, Ld. DR

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR BENCH “B”, JAIPUR BEFORE SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI NARINDER KUMAR

Rajashthan State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur

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

ITA 232/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumar

For Appellant: Mr. Rohan Chatter, Adv., Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mrs. Swapnil Parihar, JCIT, Ld. DR

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR BENCH “B”, JAIPUR BEFORE SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI NARINDER KUMAR

The Ahmedabad District Co.Op. Bank Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. CIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1108/AHD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay R. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 155(18)Section 270ASection 40

filed its return of income for the Assessment Year 2020–21 on 31.12.2020, declaring a total income of Rs.37,24,48,290/- under section 139(1) of the Act. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under section 143(3) of the Act through Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection

Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Aurangabad vs. Siddhi Vinayak Construction, Aurangabad

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

ITA 988/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Shubham N RathiFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari - CIT

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 80I

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

Srk Constructions and Projects Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-3(1), Hyderabad

In the result, ITA.No.389/Hyd

ITA 359/HYD/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: Shri Mohd. Afzal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri LV Bhaskara Reddy, CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD “B” BENCH: HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANJUNATHA

Srk Constructions and Projects Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(2), Hyderabad

ITA 389/HYD/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: Shri Mohd. Afzal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri LV Bhaskara Reddy, CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD “B” BENCH: HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANJUNATHA

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(2), Hyderabad vs. Srk Construction Projects Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, ITA.No.389/Hyd

ITA 1415/HYD/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: Shri Mohd. Afzal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri LV Bhaskara Reddy, CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD “B” BENCH: HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANJUNATHA