“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)

Sekar Govindaswamy, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1989/BANG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Feb 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2021-22 Shri. Sekar Govindaswamy, Addl/Jcit(A) - 1, No.306 Theja Sunshine Complex, Ludhiana. 16Th D Cross Pai Layout, K. R. Puram, Vs. Bangalore – 560 008, Karnataka. Pan No : Ayyps 5005 R Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Anto Joseph, Ca Respondent By : Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate, Standing Counsel For Revenue. Date Of Hearing : 10.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.02.2026

For Appellant: Shri. Anto Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate, Standing Counsel for Revenue

Section 115Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250

regime under section 115BAC of the Act was effective w.e.f. 01.04.2021 and the assessee has to file his income tax return under section 139(1) of the Act along with the Form 10IE for the Assessment Year 2021-22 and accordingly the action of the AO for not allowing ... rejection of tax benefit under the new regime for non-filing of the form 10IE on or before the due date specified under section 139(1) of the Act. 10. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is an undisputed fact that

Mr. Ashish Ramesh Ajmera, Dhule vs. ITO, Ward 1, Dhule

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

ITA 2506/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune02 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2506/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mr.Ashish Ramesh Ajmera, V Income Tax Officer, Plot No.17, Ashish Saraswati S Ward-1, Dhule. Colony, Vidhyanagri, Dhule – 424005 Pan: Aaopa3375J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Bhuvanesh Kankani Revenue By Shri Sandeep Sathe – Jcit Date Of Hearing 09/12/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 02/02/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Addl./Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal), Panaji Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2013-14 Dated 29.08.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 147 Of The Act, Dated 14.12.2018. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 69A

heard both the parties and perused the records. 5 ITA No.2506/PUN/2025 [A] Ground No.1 : 5. Admittedly, no Return of Income was filed under section 139(1) of the Act. ITO issued notice u/s.148 dated 21.03.2018 for A.Y.2013-14. In response to the notice u/s.148, Assessee filed Return of Income. Assessee

Rohan Atul Khadilkar, Pune vs. ITO, Ward 13(1), Pune

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

ITA 1200/PUN/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune02 Feb 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1200/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Kishor PhadkeFor Respondent: Date of hearing

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1200/PUN/2024

Chrysalis Play School Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai

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

ITA 3586/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3586/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2022-23 Chrysalis Play School Private Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 12, South Mada Street, Srinagar Income Tax, Colony, Saidapet, Chennai 600 015. Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai. [Pan: Aaicc2959D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Girish Kumar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Y. Sudarshan, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 27.01.2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 02.02.2026 : आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 31.12.2024 Passed By The Addl./Jcit(A), Faridabad For The Assessment Year 2022-23. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 273 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Affidavit, In 2

For Appellant: Shri Girish Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Y. Sudarshan, JCIT

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 170A

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. At the outset, we note that the assessee filed return of income under section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] on 06.10.2022 admitting a total income

Praphapananee Sekarbabu Vignesh, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-10(3), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2496/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. Suraj Nahar, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, J.C.I.T

Section 139(1)Section 154Section 90

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी जॉज" जॉज

Devadas Anup, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1933/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Guruswamy H, ITPFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate – Standing

Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 250

month from the said party. 6. For the year under consideration, the assessee filed return of income under section 139(1) of the Act declaring total income of Rs. 11,03,886/- which included liquor business income i.e. income from licence merchandise for Rs. 6,25,000/- only

Gia India Laboratory Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assessment Unit/the Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-14(1)(2)-Mumbai, Mumbai

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

ITA 6801/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

For Appellant: 1:1 The Assessing Officer has erred in not properly considering and giving effec

Section 143(3)Section 234DSection 244ASection 92C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI (JUDICIAL MEMBER) & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Ashok Sethi, Delhi vs. ACIT Circle- 70(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 5526/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2018-19 Sh. Ashok Sethi, Vs. Acit, 18, Sunder Nagar, Circle-70(1), Delhi New Delhi Pan: Bqqps1160L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Shailendra Mohan, Adv. Department By Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 02.02.2026 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2018-19, Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Addl. Jcit(A)- 2, Chennai’S Din & Order No. Itba/Apl/S/250/2025- 26/1078504613(1), Dated 15.07.2025, Involving Proceedings Under Section 154 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’). Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. Suffice To Say, It Transpires During The Course Of Hearing That Both The Learned Lower Authorities Have Denied The Assessee’S Foreign Tax Credit Claim Of Rs.1,28,946/- Under Section 90 R.W.S. 90A Of The Act For The Sole Reason That He Had Not Filed/Uploaded His Corresponding Form 67 On Or Before The Prescribed “Due” Date In The Course Of Section 154 “Rectification”, Dated 18Th August, 2022 & Upheld In The Lower Appellate Discussion. This Is What Leaves The Assessee Aggrieved. 4. We Have Given Our Thoughtful Consideration To The Assessee’S & Department’S Vehement Arguments Reiterating Their Respective Stands. It Further Emerges That The Assessee Had Subsequently Complied With The Above Form 67 Filing/Uploading Post Facto The Due Date Thereof As Admitted By Both The Parties. & Also, That Instant Identical Issue Has Been Decided By This Tribunal In Gurcharan Singh Vs. Ito

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 154Section 90

evident that the assessee has to file Form 67 on or before the due date of furnishing the return of income as per section 139(1) of the Act, which the statement specifies as mandatory and not directory as per the word ‘shall’ used in the said provisions

Suresh Ratilal Lodaria, Anjar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward - 2, Gandhidham.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 389/RJT/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 148Section 271BSection 44A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND DR. DINESH MOHAN