“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)

Sanjivani Shikshan Sansthan, Jaipur vs. ITO WD 6(3), Jaipur

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

ITA 1207/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rahoan Sogani, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR &

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh

Smt. Manjit Kaur, Mohali vs. DCIT, CC-1, Chandigarh

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee are

ITA 249/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

response to these notices, assessee has filed her return of income declaring same income which was filed by her under Section 139(1) of the Act. We deem it pertinent to take note of these details. It emerges out that assessee has filed return of income

Smt. Manjit Kaur, Mohali vs. DCIT, CC-1, Chandigarh

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee are

ITA 248/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

Smt. Manjit Kaur, Mohali vs. DCIT, CC-1, Chandigarh

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee are

ITA 247/CHANDI/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

Smt. Manjit Kaur, Mohali vs. DCIT, CC-1, Chandigarh

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee are

ITA 246/CHANDI/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

Smt. Manjit Kaur, Mohali vs. DCIT, CC-1, Chandigarh

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee are

ITA 245/CHANDI/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

DCIT, Central Circle-1(4), Kolkata vs. Southwinds Project LLP, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 169/KOL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm]

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, KOLKATA [Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, AM & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, JM] I.T.A

M/S. Elcon Estate Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 13(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2277/KOL/2024[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Apr 2025AY 2022-2023

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(1)(b)Section 246Section 250

assessee company must electronically submit Form 10-IC on or before the due date for filing the return of income under Section 139(1) of the Act. This choice, once exercised, applies to subsequent assessment years. Failure to submit this option in the prescribed form by the due date specified ... Section 139(1) results in the denial of the concessional tax rate. 8.4 The appellant filed the return for the relevant assessment year on 31.03.2022 and also filed Form 10-IC on 31.03.2022, whereas the due date for filing Form 10-IC coincided with the deadline for submitting the return

Priti Somani, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-3(1), Gangtok

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1388/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Coubeyआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1387 & 1388/Kol/2023 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years : 2012-2013 & 2013-2014) Priti Somani, Vs Ito, Ward-3(1), Gangtok C/O S.N.Ghosh&Associates,Advs 2, Garstin Place, 2Nd Floor, Suite No.203, Off Hare Street, Kolkata-700001 Pan No. :Axdps 0604 C (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh & Shri Sarnath Ghosh, Advocates राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Sailen Samadder, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22/04/2025

For Appellant: Shri Somnath GhoshFor Respondent: Shri Sailen Samadder, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 271BSection 274Section 44A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, “डी” न्यायपीठ, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT

Priti Somani, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward -3(1), Gangtok

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1387/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Somnath GhoshFor Respondent: Shri Sailen Samadder, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 271BSection 274Section 44A

Insolvency Professinal Aagency of Institute of Cost Accountants of India, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward Exemption, Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 4605/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 4605/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year : 2019-20 Insolvency Professional Agency Of Vs Income Tax Officer, Institute Of Cost Accountants Of Ward Exemption, India, 4Th Floor, 3Rd Institutional E-2 Block, Civic Centre, Area, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaeci3186J Assessee By: Sh. Ruchesh Sinha, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.04.2025 Order

For Appellant: Sh. Ruchesh Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 11Section 139(1)Section 154

exemption claim on the ground that it had not uploaded the corresponding relevant Form 9A, on or before the “due” date of filing section 139(1) return. It is made clear that the assessee filed it’s return within the due date on 31.10.2019 2 Insolvency Professional Agency of Institute

Bravura Solutions India LLP, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi

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

ITA 3944/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganeshbravura Solutions India Llp, Vs. Assessment Unit, P-24, Green Park Extension, Income Tax New Delhi-110016 Department, (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaqfb3843C

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dharm Veer Singh, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 144C(3)Section 92BSection 92C

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “I”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT

Kumar Ranganathan, Bangalore vs. DCIT Circle 1(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 20/BANG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Apr 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Sri Harish Sampangi, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, D.R

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 90

there was a delay in filling Form 67 i.e., it was filed after the due date for filling original return of prescribed under section 139(1). The said issue under consideration is no longer res integra. It is to that on identical issue, the co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal, Bangalore

Shree Suigam Khodadhor Panjara Pole, Surat vs. ITO, Exemption Ward, Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1278/SRT/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: Shri Sapnesh Sheth, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. DR

Section 11Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 12A(1)(b)Section 143(1)Section 80Section 80G(5)

assessee claimed application of income under section 11/12 of the Act. The return of income was filed within the time allowed under section 139(1) of the Act. The return of income was processed by CPC Bangalore vide order dated 26.09.2019. The CPC while processing return of income disallowed exemption ... held that where assessee claimed benefit under section 10B(8) by furnishing declaration in revised return much after due date prescribed under section 139(1), same was to be denied as requirement of furnishing declaration before AO before due date of filing original return under section 139(1

Vinod Ramchandra Jadhav, Pune vs. DCIT, CC-2(1), Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2144/PUN/2024[AY 2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Apr 2025

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Vinod Ramchandra Jadhav Central Circle 2(1), Vs. Plot No.42-44, Green Park Society, Pune Viman Nagar, Pune – 411014 Pan: Aanpj0592P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2010-11 Vinod Ramchandra Jadhav Dcit, Plot No.42-44, Green Park Society, Vs. Central Circle 2(1), Pune Viman Nagar, Pune – 411014 Pan: Aanpj0592P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kishor B Phadke Department By : Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari – Cit & Shri Arvind Desai, Addl Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 23-01-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-04-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari – CIT and Shri Arvind Desai, Addl CIT-DR

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 245C(1)Section 245DSection 245D(4)Section 245HSection 271(1)(c)

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

DCIT, CC-2(1), Pune vs. Vinod Ramchandra Jadhav, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1307/PUN/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Apr 2025AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari – CIT and Shri Arvind Desai, Addl CIT-DR

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 245C(1)Section 245DSection 245D(4)Section 245HSection 271(1)(c)

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

Shivaji Laxman Sahane, Nashik vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1, Nashik

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1078/PUN/2024[A.Y. 2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Apr 2025

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1078/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S.ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

notice under section 22(1)/22(2)/34 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 or which you were required to furnish under Section 139(1) or by a notice given under Section 139(2)/148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, No. Dt. or have without reasonable cause failed ... furnish it within the time allowed and the manner required by the said section 139(1) or by such notice. o have without reasonable cause failed to comply with a notice under section 22(4)/23(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 or under section 142(1)/143

Anirban Dutta, Palashan, P.O. Palashan vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(3), Burdwan

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1527/KOL/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Apr 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1527/Kol/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011) Anirban Dutta, Vs Ito, Court Compound, Burdwan Palashan, Dist : Purba Bardhaman Pan No. :Akvpd 6128 R (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhary, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Ashutosh Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 27/03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21/04/2025 आदेश / O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 13.05.2024, Passed By The Ld. Cit(A). National Faceless Appeal Centre(Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2010-2011. 2. At The Outset, On Perusal Of The Appeal Record, It Is Found That The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Filed Belatedly By Only 1 Day. Looking To The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Delay Of One Day In Filing The Present Appeal Is Hereby Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted For Hearing. 3. The Assessee In Its Appeal Has Raised Following Grounds :- 1. For That In View Of The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & Others Weight Of Evidence On Record, The Order Passed By Cit(A), Npac, Delhi In Appeal Case No Citia)/Bwn/10087/2015-16 On Dismissing Appeal Alleging Non-Compliance Of Notices Of Hearing Sent By E-Mail Instead Of Sent By Regd Speed Post When Notices Of Hearing Of Appeal

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhary, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashutosh Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 148Section 2(47)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, “एक-सदस्य मामला” न्यायपीठ, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH

M/S. Bharat Beedi Works Private Limited, Mangaluru vs. Deputy Commisioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 2, Mangaluru

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for all the four A

ITA 645/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Respondent: Shri E. Shridhar, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

Section 132(4) and under Section 131 when the same were retracted in entirety by the Appellant by filing the original return under Section 139(1) dated 31.12.2020 without giving effect to the aforesaid statements and by filing letters dated 06.01.2021 (the copy of same was also filed before Learned ... original return dated 30/09/2019 which abated due to search initiated on 26/02/2020. The assessee did not file returns within the period prescribed by section 139(1) and no notice under section 139(2) was served upon him. However, he filed returns under __ section 139(4). After a period of about

M/S. Bharat Beedi Works Private Limited, Mangaluru vs. Deputy Commisioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 2, Mangaluru

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for all the four A

ITA 644/BANG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Respondent: Shri E. Shridhar, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A