“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)

Ajay Bakliwal, Kota vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Kota

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1279/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rajendra Sisodia, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 132(1)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 154Section 270A

allowable because provisions of the Act which would be otherwise applicable in case of return filed in the regular course under section 139(1) would also continue to apply in case of return filed under section 153A. 2. Pune ITAT in the case of UMESH DHONDIRAM SHINDE v. DCIT ... relevant assessment year 2005-06(Not search year), 23 Ajay Bakliwal vs. ACIT assessee reported its income through a return under Section 139(1) of the Act, declaring an income of Rs.1,72,799/- on 30.12.2005. A search and seizure operation under Section 132(4) of the Act was carried

Nitesh Agarwal, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

In the result ground no. 1

ITA 1132/JPR/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Apr 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Ld. Cit(A).

For Appellant: Sh. S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anoop Singh, Addl. CIT

Section 131Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

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

Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Arvindbhai R Nanavati HUF, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1717/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. BRR KUMAR (Vice President), SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri A. K. Khandelwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri B. P. Srivastav, Sr.DR

Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 144Section 148Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “A” BENCH BEFORE: DR. BRR KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL

Ritu Singhal, Dehradun vs. DCIT/ACIT Central Circle, Dehradun

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 224/DDN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun09 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing) Ritu Singhal, Vs. Dcit/ Acit, 34F, Narndra Vihar, Central Circle, Kaulagarh Road, Dehradun Uttarakhand (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Bayps8429Q Assessee By : Shri Harshit Gupta, Ca Revenue By: Shri S. K. Chaterjee, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 19/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09/04/2025

For Appellant: Shri Harshit Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. K. Chaterjee, CIT DR

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 147Section 40A(3)Section 69A

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DEHRADUN BENCH “SMC”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI M

Neeraj Singhal, Dehradun vs. DCIT ACIT Cen Cir, Ddn, Dehradun

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 124/DDN/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun09 Apr 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing) Neeraj Singhal, Vs. Dcit/Acit, Haripur, Kalsi, Dehradun, Central Circle, Uttarakhand Dehradun (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Apzps7059D Assessee By : Shri Harshit Gupta, Ca Revenue By: Shri S. K. Chaterjee, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 19/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09/04/2025

For Appellant: Shri Harshit Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. K. Chaterjee, CIT DR

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 292CSection 40A(3)Section 69Section 69C

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DEHRADUN BENCH “SMC”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI M

Shashikala Bhimacharya Malagi, Gokak, Karnataka vs. ITO, Ward-1, Gokak, Karnatka

The appeal is partly allowed in aforestated terms

ITA 180/PAN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji09 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 180/Pan/2023 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shashikala Bhimacharya Malagi 0, Soubhagya, Kalyan Housing Colony, Gokak, Belgaum-591307 Pan : Bdypm3708B . . . . . . .Appellant V/S Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Gokak. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Mr Himanshu Gandhi [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Mr Narendra Reddy [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 08/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 09/04/2025 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; The Captioned Appeal Of The Assessee Impugns Din & Order No. 1055706480(1) Dt. 04/09/2023 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. Nfac’ Hereinafter] U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’ Hereinafter] Which In Turn Arisen Out Of Order Of Assessment Dt. 20/12/2019 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Anent To Assessment Year 2017-18 [‘Ay’ Hereinafter].

For Appellant: Mr Himanshu Gandhi [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Narendra Reddy [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

accessed to tax regularly until declaration of demonetisation period, as there was no taxable income requiring her to comply with the provision of section 139(1) of the Act. In the year under consideration upon declaration of demonisation by the Hon’ble Prime Minister, the appellant deposited SBN worth

Brijmohan Prasad Gupta, Kanker vs. ITO, Ward- Jagdalpur, Jagdalpur

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

ITA 42/RPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur09 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.42/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-14 Brijmohan Prasad Gupta Janakpur Ward, Tikrapara, Kanker (C.G.)-494 334 Pan: Adbpg3007B

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 10(38)Section 68

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ “एक-सद"य” मामला रायपुर म" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH

Vallachira Service Co Op Society Ltd No 527, Vallachira vs. Income Tax Officer, Thrissur

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

ITA 962/COCH/2024[2023-2024]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Apr 2025AY 2023-2024

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

For Appellant: Sri.M.Ramdas, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Sr.AR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 80P

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri George George K, Vice-President & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

The Vellathooval Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd, Idukki vs. ITO, Ward 1 & Tps, Thodupuzha

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 848/COCH/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Shri C.A. Jojo, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

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

ground that the return of income was not fled within the due date specified under the provisions of section 139(1) of the Act. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A) with a delay of 1268 days. The appellant filed a petition seeking condonation of delay

Incometax Officer, Non Corporate Ward 2(4), Kochi vs. Kochin Co Operative Society Ltd, Mattancherry

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

ITA 663/COCH/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Ms. Niveditha K. Kammath, Advocate

Section 139(1)Section 144Section 148Section 69ASection 80P

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

Income Tax Officer, I S Press Road, Kochi vs. Kochin Co Operative Society Ltd, Mattancherry

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

ITA 644/COCH/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Ms. Niveditha K. Kammath, Advocate

Section 139(1)Section 144Section 148Section 69ASection 80P

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

Prakash Chand Varindani, Jaipur vs. ACIT Certal Cirlce-3, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1146/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Him. 2

For Appellant: Sh. Abhishek Soni, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Swapnil Parihar, JCIT-DR

Section 144Section 40A(3)Section 68

Debtors. Moreover, the assessee has not filed his Income tax return u/s 142(1) of the IT Act. 1961 within due date under section 139(1). During the survey proceedings, it was noticed that the assessee has not maintained regular books of accounts. However, the assessee was claiming various expenses

Lall Construction Company, New Delhi vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, Centralized Processing Centre, Bengaluru, Karnataka

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for

ITA 4206/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.4206/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21 बनाम Lall Construction Company, Acit, Plot No.28, Third Floor, Vs. Centralized Processing Centre, 1St Floor, Prestige Alpha Karuna Kunj, Sector-3, Dwarka, New Delhi. No.48/1, 48/2, Beratenaagrahara Begur, Hosur Road, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru, Karnataka. Pan No. Aacfl0648M अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 234ASection 36(1)(va)Section 37

that no disallowance is called for where employee's share of contribution is paid before the due date of filing the return under Section 139(1) of the Act. Therefore, the disallowance amounting to Rs.7,72,180/- made on this account is illegal, bad in law and liable

Super Bazar Stores Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-6, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 9757/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia[Assessment Year : 2014-15] Super Bazar Stores Pvt.Ltd. Vs Acit, C/O-Radheyshyam Sharma & Central Circle-6 Co., Ca, 351, 3Rd Floor Jhandewalan Ext. Aggarwal Modern Bazar New Delhi Lawrence Road New Delhi-110035 Pan-Aascs6467N Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Amol Sinha, Adv. Respondent By Ms. Jaya Chaudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 24.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09.04.2025 Order

Section 153C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “G” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR

Janaki Thangam Educational Trust, Chennai vs. ITO, Exemptions Ward-3, Chennai

In the result, the stay application filed by the assessee is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 430/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.430/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21 & S.A. No. 36/Chny/2025 [In I.T.A. No. 430/Chny/2025] Janaki Thangam Educational Trust, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Plot No. 9, Santhanasrinivasa Perumal Exemptions Ward (3), Koil Street, Tnhb Special Scheme, Chennai. Mogappair West, Chennai 600 037. [Pan: Aaatj5734C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sundar Raman, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gauthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 03.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.04.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 09.01.2025 Passed By The Addl/Jcit(A)-7, Mumbai For The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. The Ld. Ar Shri S. Sundar Raman, Ca Prayed To Take-Up Appeal For Hearing & Adjudication First & With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed To Hear The Appeal First.

For Appellant: Shri S. Sundar Raman, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Gauthami Manivasagam, JCIT

Section 11Section 139(1)Section 143(1)

under section 143(1) of the Act dated 30.11.2021, denied the said claim for not filing return of income within due date under section 139(1) of the Act, which was confirmed by the first appellate authority. 4. The ld. AR submits that the assessee filed its return of income ... under section 139(1) of the Act as against the due date of 15.02.2021 [being extended due date]. The ld. AR fairly conceded that the assessee is not entitled to claim exemption under section 11 of the Act as the return was not filed within the due date as prescribed

Late Singaravelu Krishnammal, L/H. R.S. Gandhi, Nagapattinam vs. ITO, Ward-1, Nagapattinam

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3022/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3022/Chny/2024 निर्ाारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2017-18

For Appellant: Mr. Girish Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr.I.Roopa, Addl, CIT

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, ‘‘ए’ न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI श्री एबी टी. वर्की, न्यायिर्क

M. Natesan, Karur vs. ITO, Ward-1, Karur

In the result, all the appeals t, all the appeals stand allowed

ITA 2765/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘सी’ "ायपीठ,चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी एबी टी. वक", "ाियक

R.Easwaramoorthy, Karur vs. ITO, Ward-1, Karur

In the result, all the appeals t, all the appeals stand allowed

ITA 2697/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

S. Easwaramoorthy, Karur vs. ITO, Ward-1, Karur

ITA 2696/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

Section 133A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'सी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL'C' BENCH: CHENΝΑΙ श्री एबी टी. वर्की, न्यायिक

S. Easwaramoorthy, Karur vs. ITO, Ward-1, Karur

In the result, all the appeals t, all the appeals stand allowed

ITA 2695/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish