← 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)

Late Smt. Dayawanti Devi, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, this assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for

ITA 1262/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: Shri J.P. Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)Section 40

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’, NEW DELHI Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member And Shri

Monika Rathore, Gwalior vs. Income Tax Officer Ward -1, Morena

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

ITA 290/AGR/2024[MONIKA RATHORE]Status: DisposedITAT Agra06 Feb 2025

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2023-24

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 90

Commissioner (Appeals) Commissioner (Appeals) held that since assessee had failed to file Form No. 67 within due date specified for filing return under section 139(1), Assessing Officer had rightly disallowed claim for foreign tax credit - It was noted that Bangalore Bench of Tribunal on identical issue in case ... taxmann.com 358/193 ITD 840 held that non- furnishing of Form No. 67 before due date specified for furnishing return under section 139(1) was not fatal to claim for foreign tax credit - Whether Assessing Officer was to be directed to give credit for foreign tax as per Form

Ankita Paliwal, Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Aligarh

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

ITA 195/AGR/2024[AY 2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Agra06 Feb 2025

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 234ASection 90

Commissioner (Appeals) Commissioner (Appeals) held that since assessee had failed to file Form No. 67 within due date specified for filing return under section 139(1), Assessing Officer had rightly disallowed claim for foreign tax credit - It was noted that Bangalore Bench of Tribunal on identical issue in case ... taxmann.com 358/193 ITD 840 held that non- furnishing of Form No. 67 before due date specified for furnishing return under section 139(1) was not fatal to claim for foreign tax credit - Whether Assessing Officer was to be directed to give credit for foreign tax as per Form

Vinay Kumar Jha, Madhubani vs. PCIT-2, Patna

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

ITA 306/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Patna06 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

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

State Bank of India, Saharghat at Rs. 11,65,500/-. No return of income was filed within the due date prescribed in section 139(1) of the Act. Therefore, a notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued requesting for filing the return which was not complied with. Subsequently

M/S. Merino Industries Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 12(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 292/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A No.174/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Circle-12(1), Kolkata…………………….................................……Revenue Vs. M/S Merino Industries Ltd.…………....................................……...…..…..Assessee 5, Alexandra Court, 60/1, Chowringhee Road, Kolkata – 700020. [Pan: Aaacc9186C] I.T.A No.292/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Merino Industries Ltd …………………….…….......................…… Assessee 5, Alexandra Court, 60/1, Chowringhee Road, Kolkata – 700020. [Pan: Aaacc9186C] Vs. Dcit, Circle-12(1), Kolkata.…….................................……....…........….. Revenue Appearances By: Shri Shyam Sundar Jha, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Prakash Nath Barnwal, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 12, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 06, 2025 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Are Cross-Appeals, One By The Assessee & The Other By The Revenue Against The Common Order Dated 09.10.2018 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). Since The Facts & Issued Involved In Both The Appeals Are Identical & Both The Appeals Are Arising Out Of The Same

Section 2(22)Section 250Section 801A

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ ‘, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH KOLKATA Before Shri Sanjay

DCIT, Circle - 12(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Merino Industries Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 174/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 2(22)Section 250Section 801A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, कोलकाता पीठ ', कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH KOLKATA Before Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial

Kumarswamy Gangasharaish Kallur, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1391/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri. Sandeep Chalapathy, CAFor Respondent: Shri. E. Shridhar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 119Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 271BSection 44A

levied under section 271B of the Act in spite of audit report furnished after extended due date of filing of return as per section 139(1) of the Act. He further submitted that in the reassessment proceedings, the learned Pr. CIT has no power to direct the AO to make ... along with Form 3CB of the Act, dated 27.01.2015 which was beyond the extended due date for filing of return of income under section 139(1) of the Act. The case was reopened after issue of notice under section 148 of the Act and case was completed under section

Sewa Sahakari Samiti Maryadit Jamner, Guna vs. ITO, Guna

Appeal is allowed

ITA 48/AGR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Agra05 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Ms. Prarthana Jalan, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Shailendra Shrivastava, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 80ASection 80P

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AGRA BENCH, AGRA Before Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member & Sh. M. Balaganesh, Accountant

Police Karmachari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Gondia, Gondia vs. Income Tax Officer Ward -2, Gondia

In the result, appeal by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 263/NAG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur05 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Abhay AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 143(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.M. ROY

Dy. C.I.T. Cir-.2, Nagpur vs. Shri Govinddas Goverdhan Daga, Nagpur

ITA 517/NAG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur05 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 147Section 148Section 44A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.M. ROY

Jasbir Kumar, Legal Heir of Sh. Kishna (Deceased), Yamuna Nagar, Haryana vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Yamuna Nagar, Haryana

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 196/CHANDI/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh05 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Shri B.M.Monga & Shri Rohit Kaura, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl.CIT, Sr.DR
Section 139(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

unless assessee had paid the tax on the agreed income. In other words, if an assessee has filed a return declaring income under Section 139(1), then on that ITA No.195 & 196/CHD/2024 A.Y.2012-13 3 income assessee ought to have paid the taxes. In the present case, since assessee

Jasbir Kumar, Legal Heir of Sh. Kishna (Deceased), Yamuna Nagar, Haryana vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Yamuna Nagar, Haryana

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 195/CHANDI/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh05 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Shri B.M.Monga & Shri Rohit Kaura, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl.CIT, Sr.DR
Section 139(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

unless assessee had paid the tax on the agreed income. In other words, if an assessee has filed a return declaring income under Section 139(1), then on that ITA No.195 & 196/CHD/2024 A.Y.2012-13 3 income assessee ought to have paid the taxes. In the present case, since assessee

Bikash Kumar Mondal, Arambagh vs. ITO Ward 1(4) Hooghly, Chinsura

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

ITA 916/KOL/2024[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Feb 2025AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz)

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 194C(5)Section 40Section 44A

granite under the name and style of M/s. Shivam Marble. During the assessment year, the assessee filed his return of income under section 139(1) of the Act declaring total income of Rs.8,61,310/- and the accounts was duly audited under section 44AB of the Act. The case

Shyamganj Pirijpur Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Ltd., West Midnapore vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 38, West Midnapur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1961/KOL/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Feb 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1961/Kol/2024 Assessment Year : 2018-19 Shyamganj Pirijpur Samabay V/S Acit, Circle-38, Midnapur Krishi Unnayan Samity Ltd., Vill & P.O. Shyamganj, Block-Daspur Ii, Dist-Paschim Medinipur-721153 West Bengal Pan : Aalas8075R Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhry, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Madhumita Das, Addl. CIT
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 80P

which include deduction u/s 80P such deduction has to be allowed only if the return is filed within due date specified under sub-section 139(1) of the Act. In other words, if any return is filed beyond due date u/s 139(1) of the Act then no deduction

Patria Surakshaa Trust, Chennai vs. CIT(Exemption), Chennai

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

ITA 2304/CHNY/2024[-]Status: FixedITAT Chennai05 Feb 2025

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2304/Chny/2024 िनधा(रण वष(/Assessment Year: 2021-22 Patria Surakshaa Trust, Vs. The Commissioner Of No.9, Chockalingam Nagar, Income Tax (Exemption), Teynampet, Chennai. Chennai – 600 086. [Pan: Aadtp 4062E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (+,थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : None +,थ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Keerthi Narayanan, Jcit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23.12.2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05.02.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Keerthi Narayanan, JCIT
Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 80G

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

Shree Sree Balananda Trust, Deoghar vs. ITO, Exemption Ward, Dhanbad

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 16/RAN/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi04 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryshree Sree Balananda Trust, I.T.O., Sri Sri Balananda Ashram, Karinabad, Exemption Ward, Vs. Deoghar, Dist.- Deoghar, Dhanbad. Jharkhand-841112 Pan No. Aabts 0579 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 11Section 13(9)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 154

grounds of appeal on record. 2. In this case, the return of income was filed by the assessee within due date under Section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act). However, the assessee failed to furnish Form-10 and accordingly failed to satisfy

ACIT, Patna vs. New Era Social Development Welfare Society, Patna

Appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 296/PAT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna04 Feb 2025AY 2017-18
Section 10Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 12A(1)(b)Section 139(1)Section 144Section 2Section 250Section 288

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “PATNA BENCH” PATNA (VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA) SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY

Ashish Tarunkumar Doshi, Yavatmal vs. ITO Ward-1, Yavatamal

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

ITA 585/NAG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur04 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Gandhi, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)Section 69

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI KHETTRA MOHAN

Kulasekharapuram Service Coperative Bank Ltd No.995, Kollam vs. ITO, Kollam

In the result, ITA No. 781/Coch/2024 is dismissed and ITA Nos

ITA 783/COCH/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin04 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rajakannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 80ASection 80A(5)Section 80P

Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. The appellant did not file return of income for AY 2017-18 under the provisions of section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, Alappuzha (hereinafter called "the AO") issued notice u/s. 142(1 ... 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

Kulasekharapuram Service Cooperative Bank Ltd No.995, Kollam vs. ITO, Ward-5, Alappuzha

In the result, ITA No. 781/Coch/2024 is dismissed and ITA Nos

ITA 782/COCH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin04 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rajakannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 80ASection 80A(5)Section 80P

Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. The appellant did not file return of income for AY 2017-18 under the provisions of section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, Alappuzha (hereinafter called "the AO") issued notice u/s. 142(1 ... 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