← 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)

Hinganghat Nagri Sahakari Pat Sanstha, Hinganghat vs. Income Tax Ward-1, Wardha

In the result, appeal by the assessee for A

ITA 567/NAG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur10 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Suyash RankaFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 56Section 80P

deduction under chapter VIA is allowable if the claim of the same is made in the return of income either filed under section 139(1) or filed under section 139(4) or in response to notice u/s 142(1) or filed before completion of assessment. The specific disallowance of claims ... were made by the assessee in a return of income filed by him. That return can be under sections 139(1), 139(4), 142(1) or section 148, and to be valid, had to be filed within the due date contemplated under those provisions. Under section 80A(5), the claim

Hinganghat Nagri Sahakari Pat Sanstha, Hinganghat vs. Income Tax Ward-1, Wardha

ITA 566/NAG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur10 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Suyash RankaFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(1)

deduction under chapter VIA is allowable if the claim of the same is made in the return of income either filed under section 139(1) or filed under section 139(4) or in response to notice u/s 142(1) or filed before completion of assessment. The specific disallowance of claims

DCIT CC 1(1), Nagpur vs. Brindesh Goverdhandas Agrawal, Nagpur

In the result, appeal by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 258/NAG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur10 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 69

09/08/2021, was issued and served to the assessee, the assessee filed his return of income for the year under consideration on 31/10/2018, under section 139(1) of the Act, declaring total income of ` 7,51,82,010. Subsequently, the assessee, in response to the notice under section 153C ... submitted that the return of income filed under section 139(1) of the Act may be treated as return of income under section 153C of the Act. Thereafter, various statutory notices were issued and served upon the assessee. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment on 29/09/2021, under section

Muhammed Ramsi Malika Kunhithan, Kozhikode vs. ITO, Ward 1(2), Kozhikode

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

ITA 889/COCH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin10 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2017-18 Muhammed Ramsi Malika Kunhihan .......... Appellant Baithul Ummer, Fransics Road, Kallai, Kozhikode 673003 [Pan: Bmqpk8647E] Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Ward - 1(2), Kozhikode

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250(6)Section 69

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM Assessment Year: 2017-18 Muhammed Ramsi

Othukkungal Service Co-Operative Bank Limited No.F1039, Malappuram vs. ITO, Ward-1, Malappuram

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

ITA 858/COCH/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin10 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2018-19 Othukkungal Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. .......... Appellant Xi/38, Service Bank Building, Kuzhipuram Road, Othukungal, Malappuram 676528 [Pan: Aaaao1158J] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward -1 .......... Respondent Tharff Bazar, Opp. Town Hall, Tirur 676101

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 119(2)Section 139(1)Section 139(9)Section 143(1)Section 80P

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM Assessment Year: 2018-19 Othukkungal Service

Christudanam Yassaya, Thiruvananthapuram vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Thiruvananthapuram

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

ITA 840/COCH/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin10 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2011-12 Christudanam Yassaya .......... Appellant Bathel Kp 17A Maruthoor, Vattapara P.O. Thiruvananthapuram 695028 [Pan: Acmpy4412C] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1) .......... Respondent Aayakar Bhavan, Kowdiar Thiruvananthapuram 695003

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 142Section 144Section 148Section 264Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM Assessment Year: 2011-12 Christudanam Yassaya

Mammi Chakkuttiparambil, Tirur vs. ITO, Ward -1, Tirur

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

ITA 832/COCH/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin10 Feb 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2010-11 Mammi Chakkuttiparambil .......... Appellant Chakkutty Parambil House Alathiyur P.O., Tirur 676102 [Pan: Bghpc9062L] Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Ward - 1, Tirur

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM Assessment Year: 2010-11 Mammi Chakkuttiparambil

Aravindakshan Nair, Kollam vs. ITO, Ward 1 & Tps, Kollam

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

ITA 775/COCH/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin10 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2013-14 Aravindakshan Nair .......... Appellant Pettee Veetil Puthen Veedu Padinjattakara, Thavalakkara West Karunagapply, Kollam 690524 [Pan: Agxpn7763L] Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Ward - 1 & Tps, Kollam Appellant By: Shri R. Krishnan, Ca Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 05.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.02.2025

For Appellant: Shri R. Krishnan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM Assessment Year: 2013-14 Aravindakshan Nair

Black and White Paints, Kuttiady vs. ITO Ward 2(2), Kozhikode

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

ITA 636/COCH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin10 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2017-18 Black & White Paints .......... Appellant Kpii 122 A4, Ac Complex, Wayanad Road Kuttiady, Kozhikode 673508 [Pan: Aalfb7402L] Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Ward - 2(2), Kozhikode Appellant By: ------- None ------- Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 05.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.02.2025

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 142Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)

engaged in the business of dealing in paints. The return of income for AY 2017-18 was not filed under the provisions of section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). However, the Income Tax Officer, Ward – (2)(2), Kozhikode (hereinafter called "the AO"), based

M/S. Arthbharti Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Latur vs. ITO, Ward-1, Latur

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Partly Allowed

ITA 1848/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1848/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S.Arthbharti Nagari Sahakari V The Income Tax Officer, Patsanstha Maryadit, S Ward-1, Latur. Adarsh Colony, Old Ausa Road, Latur – 413512. Pan: Aabaa2265P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Bhuvanesh Kankani – Ar Revenue By Shri Manoj Tripathi - Dr Date Of Hearing 12/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10/02/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] For Assessment Year 2018-19Dated 24.07.2024 Passed U/Sec.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. Without Prejudice To Other Grounds & On The Facts & Circumstances Prevailing In The Case & As Per Provisions & Scheme Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ('The Act') It Be Held That The Assessment Proceedings So Completed Are Invalid Since The Addition Is Made On An Issue Different Than That For Which Case Was Re-Opened. Since, The Issue Of Re-Opening Did Not Survive The Assessment Proceedings Becomes Void-Ab-Initio. Accordingly, The Assessment Proceedings So Initiated & Completed Be Kindly Annulled & Appellant Be Granted Just & Proper Relief In This Respect.

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151ASection 250Section 80P

Societies Act, 1960. It is observed from the assessment record that No return of Income was filed by the Assessee for A.Y.2018-19 under section 139(1) of the Act. The Assessing Officer(AO) received information that Assessee has made huge cash deposits. Therefore, Assessing Officer, ITO, Ward-1, Latur issued ... Assessee deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act, on the ground that Assessee had not filed Return of Income under section 139(1) of the Act. Aggrieved by the assessment order, assessee filed appeal before the ld.CIT(A). The ld.CIT(A) confirmed the assessment order. Aggrieved

Shyamsundar Polymers Pvt. Ltd., Durgapur vs. I.T.O., Ward - 2(4), Durgapur

In the result, the appeal stands disposed of with the above direction

ITA 1653/KOL/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Feb 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 2Section 36(1)(va)

hereunder :- 1. The return of income for AY 2020-21 has been filed on or before the due date specified under section 139(1) of the Act. 2. The assessee company has opted for taxation u/s 115BAA of the Act in (e) of “Filing Status” in “Part ... that the assessee has filed the return of income for the assessment year 2020-21 on or before the due dates specified under Section 139 (1) of the Act. Equally, it is not in dispute that the assessee company has opted for taxation under Section 115BAA of the Act. This

Uday G Andanimath, Hubli vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Hubli

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1784/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Shankar S.V. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., Jt. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 144Section 263Section 271BSection 44ASection 69A

more than Rs.2 crores, therefore the assessee was required to get his books of accounts audited within the due date as per section 139(1). Therefore, we confirm the order of the ld. CIT(A) and reject the arguments advanced by the ld. counsel for the Page

Sakshi Ratneshchand Jain, Mumbai vs. Int Tax Ward 3(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1741/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 139(1)Section 144CSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151ASection 68Section 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘I’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH

Eminence Townships (India) Private Limited, New Delhi vs. CIT(TDS), Delhi-1, New Delhi

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2296/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2020-21 Sh. Kabir Dubey, Vs. Income Tax Office, C-4/139, Sector-31, Circle-5(1)(1), Noida G.B. Nagar Pan :Aaxpd7621D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Ajit Kumar Jha, Adv. Department By Sh. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav, Sr. Dr

Section 139(1)Section 154

favour that the same ought to be deposited on or before the due date in the corresponding statute than that of filing of section 139(1) return. The assessee fails in it’s instant first and foremost ground in very terms. 3. Next comes equally important aspect of assessee

Hindustan Epc Co. Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-20, New Delhi

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

ITA 1665/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Y.K. Meghan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 14ASection 234Section 40ASection 43B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘G’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI NAVEEN

Shankar Prasad, Nalanda vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4/PAT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna07 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.04/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shankar Prasad…………………………………………………..………….……Appellant S/O Yogendra Prasad, Vill-Asthawan, P.O – Asthawan, Biharsharif, Nalanda, Bihar-803107. [Pan: Avnpp3389B] Vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department ……………….........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri A. K. Rastogi, Sr. Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit - Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 06, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 07, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against An Order Dated 22.11.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Did Not File His Return Of Income For The Relevant Assessment Year. The Assessing Officer Got Information That The Assessee Had Made Cash Withdrawals Of Rs.1,37,13,000/- From Current Account Maintained With Canara Bank During F.Y 2017-18 & The Assessee Did Not File Any Itr. Therefore, The Assessing Officer After Obtaining Approval From The Competent Authority Issued Notice U/S 147 R.W.S 148A Of The Act Through Email. In Response To The Notice, The Assessee Filed His Return After A

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “PATNA BENCH, PATNA VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA Before Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member and

Bennet Pharmaceuticals Limited, Vadodara vs. The Dy. CIT, Central Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 782/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri TR Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Surendra Modiani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 80ASection 80CSection 80I

inserted by the Income Tax (17th Amendment) Rules 2013. Since the assessee has not filed the return as per section 139(1) of the Act, therefore as per section 80AC of the Act, the benefit u/s. 80IC is not available to the assessee, thereby dismissed the appeal filed

Bennet Pharmaceuticals Limited, Vadodara vs. The Dy. CIT, Central Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 781/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri TR Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Surendra Modiani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 80ASection 80CSection 80I

inserted by the Income Tax (17th Amendment) Rules 2013. Since the assessee has not filed the return as per section 139(1) of the Act, therefore as per section 80AC of the Act, the benefit u/s. 80IC is not available to the assessee, thereby dismissed the appeal filed

Karthikeyaraj, Ulundurpet vs. ITO, Ward-1, Villupuram

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

ITA 2392/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2392/Chny/2024 िनधा9रण वष9 /Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri C. Murugesan, Addl. CIT
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271BSection 44A

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी यस यस िव"ने

Gautam Surendra Jaggi, Mumbai vs. ACIT, 27(1)-Vashi, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5545/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Shailesh Shah, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Pushkaraj Bhangepatil, Sr. D/R
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

| आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "ायपीठ, मुंबई | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON’BLE