← 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)

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Amit Kumar Kothari, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue for the AY 2019-

ITA 2664/CHNY/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Apr 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2662, 2663 & 2664/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2022-23 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Amit Kumar Kothari, Income Tax, New No. 35 To 41, Old No. 28, Central Circle 2(1), Evk Sampath Salai, Vepery, Chennai. Chennai 600 007. [Pan:Adypa1209N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. Venkata Raman, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 13.03.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.04.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Three Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Separate Orders All Dated 21.08.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -19, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2022-23. 2. Since Issues Raised In These Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed To Hear

For Appellant: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri R. Venkata Raman, C.A
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 69

under section 148 of the Act as against the returned income of ₹.80,04,120/- as per original return of income filed under section 139(1) of the Act. While offering an amount of ₹.1.01.04,800/- for the year as per peak credit working, assessee submitted that since no regular

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Amit Kumar Kothari, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue for the AY 2019-

ITA 2663/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2662, 2663 & 2664/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2022-23 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Amit Kumar Kothari, Income Tax, New No. 35 To 41, Old No. 28, Central Circle 2(1), Evk Sampath Salai, Vepery, Chennai. Chennai 600 007. [Pan:Adypa1209N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. Venkata Raman, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 13.03.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.04.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Three Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Separate Orders All Dated 21.08.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -19, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2022-23. 2. Since Issues Raised In These Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed To Hear

For Appellant: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri R. Venkata Raman, C.A
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 69

under section 148 of the Act as against the returned income of ₹.80,04,120/- as per original return of income filed under section 139(1) of the Act. While offering an amount of ₹.1.01.04,800/- for the year as per peak credit working, assessee submitted that since no regular

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Amit Kumar Kothari, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue for the AY 2019-

ITA 2662/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2662, 2663 & 2664/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2022-23 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Amit Kumar Kothari, Income Tax, New No. 35 To 41, Old No. 28, Central Circle 2(1), Evk Sampath Salai, Vepery, Chennai. Chennai 600 007. [Pan:Adypa1209N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. Venkata Raman, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 13.03.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.04.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Three Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Separate Orders All Dated 21.08.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -19, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2022-23. 2. Since Issues Raised In These Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed To Hear

For Appellant: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri R. Venkata Raman, C.A
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 69

under section 148 of the Act as against the returned income of ₹.80,04,120/- as per original return of income filed under section 139(1) of the Act. While offering an amount of ₹.1.01.04,800/- for the year as per peak credit working, assessee submitted that since no regular

Odisha Sports Development and Promotion Company, Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT, Exemption Ward, Jeypore

In the result, all three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 497/CTK/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack08 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita Nos.496-498/Ctk/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18) Odisha Sports Development & Vs Dcit, Exemption Ward, Promotion Company, Bhubaneswar Western Stand, Kalinga Stadium Bhubaneswar, Odisha Pan No. :Aabco 9237 H (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.R.Mohanty, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 08/04/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08/04/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated All Dated 30.09.2024, Passed In Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024- 25/1069244316(1), Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1069244321(1) & Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1069244327(1) For The Assessment Year 2015-2016, 2016-2017 & 2017-2018. 2. Shri P.R.Mohanty, Fca Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Sanjay Kumar, Ld Cit Dr Represented On Behalf Of The Revenue. 3. It Was Submitted By Ld Ar Of The Assessee That The Assessee Is A Company Promoted By The Government Of Odisha. It Was The Submission That The Company’S Accounts Were Audited By Statutory Auditors. It Was The 2

For Appellant: Shri P.R.Mohanty, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 11(2)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, कटक न्यायपीठ,कटक IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK श्री जाजज माथन, न्याययक सदस्य

Odisha Sports Development Andpromotion Company, Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT, Exemption Ward, Bhubaneswar

In the result, all three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 496/CTK/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack08 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita Nos.496-498/Ctk/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18) Odisha Sports Development & Vs Dcit, Exemption Ward, Promotion Company, Bhubaneswar Western Stand, Kalinga Stadium Bhubaneswar, Odisha Pan No. :Aabco 9237 H (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.R.Mohanty, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 08/04/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08/04/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated All Dated 30.09.2024, Passed In Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024- 25/1069244316(1), Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1069244321(1) & Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1069244327(1) For The Assessment Year 2015-2016, 2016-2017 & 2017-2018. 2. Shri P.R.Mohanty, Fca Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Sanjay Kumar, Ld Cit Dr Represented On Behalf Of The Revenue. 3. It Was Submitted By Ld Ar Of The Assessee That The Assessee Is A Company Promoted By The Government Of Odisha. It Was The Submission That The Company’S Accounts Were Audited By Statutory Auditors. It Was The 2

For Appellant: Shri P.R.Mohanty, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 11(2)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, कटक न्यायपीठ,कटक IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK श्री जाजज माथन, न्याययक सदस्य