← 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)

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 781/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

Thomas Varghese, Trivandrum vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Trivandrum

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

ITA 773/COCH/2024[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin04 Feb 2025AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm Assessment Year: 2010-11 Thomas Varghese .......... Appellant Manthottathu Bunglow, Hose No. 38 Lane 1, Peroorada, Trivandrum 695005 [Pan: Altpv0273E] Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax .......... Respondent International Taxation Thiruvananthapuram Appellant By: ------- None ------- Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 21.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 04.02.2025

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

Capital Gains’. However, the 2 Thomas Varghese appellant had not filed the return of income for AY 2010-11 under the provisions of section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). Therefore, the DCIT (Exemption), Thiruvananthapuram (hereinafter called "the AO") issued notice

Hyderabad Castings Private Limited, Secunderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 6/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad04 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Bleshri Manjunatha. G. Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Akshay Surana, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Harshita Chouhan, Sr. AR
Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)(a)Section 801ASection 80I

filed on or before due date u/s 139(1) of the Act. If, the assessee filed return of income as per section 139(1), then the assessee is eligible for deduction u/s 80IA of the Act, provided other conditions are satisfied. In the present case, the objection

Ravi Kumar, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(4), Hyderabad

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

ITA 167/HYD/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.167/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2011-12) Ravi Kumar Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward-4(4) [Pan : Adopk6597R] Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri A.Srinivas, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Dr.Sachin Kumar, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 20/01/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 04/02/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 17.01.2024 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Ld.Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Pertaining To A.Y.2011-12. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That, The Assessee, An Individual Entered Into A Development Agreement Cum General Power Of Attorney Vide Document Number 560/2011 Dated 24.03.2011 With M/S Gayathri Construction Company For Joint Development Of A Property. The Assessee Had Not Disclosed The Transaction In His Return Of Income. Therefore, The Assessment

For Appellant: Shri A.Srinivas, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Sachin Kumar, DR
Section 147Section 148Section 54F

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad SM ‘B’ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri Laliet Kumar

Matushri Shambai Lohana Mahajanwadi Trust, Kalyan vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 5526/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Asif Karmali, Sr. D/R
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)

Form 10, in terms of Rule 17 of the Rules, is required to be filed before the expiry of the time allowed under Section 139(1) of the Act to file a return of income. In this case, it is submitted that Form 10 has been filed much after ... expiry of time to file return of income under Section 139(1) of the Act. Moreover, in this case, it is submitted that Form 10 was not filed along with return of income, thus the Respondent is not entitled to the benefit of accumulation of income under Section

Jogender, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-1, Rewari

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

ITA 3042/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. M. Balaganesh & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year2017-18 Surabhi Shodh Sansthan Vs. Dcit, Circle Exemp-2(1), 1428 Maliwara , Chandni Civic Centre, Minto Road, Chowk Delhi 110006 New Delhi Pan No.Aapts1404B (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80G(5)(vi)

filing the audit report. He further submitted that filing the audit report in Form 10 online on or before filing the ITR under section 139(1) of the Act was one of the requirements to avail the benefit under section 11 and 12 of the Act. The requirement of filing ... Form 10 online on or before filing ITR under section 139(1) of the Act was directory in nature and thus was curable defect. The Assessing Officer should have considered the uploaded audit report in Form 10 at the time of processing the ITR under section 143(1

Padmavati Realities, Nagpur vs. PCIT - Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Nagpur

In the result, ITA.No.251/NAG

ITA 255/NAG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur03 Feb 2025AY 2019-20

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

For Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148(2)Section 151Section 34

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

Padmavati Realities, Nagpur vs. PCIT - Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Nagpur

In the result, ITA.No.251/NAG

ITA 254/NAG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur03 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148(2)Section 151Section 34

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

Neel Infratech, Nagpur vs. PCIT - Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Nagpur

In the result, ITA.No.251/NAG

ITA 253/NAG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur03 Feb 2025AY 2019-20

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

For Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148(2)Section 151Section 34

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

Neel Infratech, Nagpur vs. PCIT - Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Nagpur

In the result, ITA.No.251/NAG

ITA 252/NAG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur03 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148(2)Section 151Section 34

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

Neel Infratech, Nagpur vs. PCIT - Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Nagpur-1, Nagpur

In the result, ITA.No.251/NAG

ITA 251/NAG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur03 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148(2)Section 151Section 34

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

Varadayampalayam Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society, Coimbatore vs. Income Tax Officer, Coimbatore

The appeal stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2799/CHNY/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Feb 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2799/Chny/2024 (िनधा'रणवष' / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Varadayampalayam Primary Agricultural Ito बनाम/ Co-Operative Credit Society Non-Corporate Ward-1(4), #31, Kattampatty, Ss Kullam Via Coimbatore. Vs. Coimbatore Dist. 641 107. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabak-0997-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms. R. Reshma (Advocate) - Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Ashwin D. Gowda (Addl.Cit) - Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27-01-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-02-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19 Arises Out Of The Order Of Learned Addl. / Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Thane [Cit(A)] Dated 26-09-2024 In The Matter Of An Intimation Issued By Cpc U/S 143(1) Of The Act On 30-09-2020. 2. In The Intimation U/S 143(1), The Assessee Was Denied Deduction U/S 80P For Rs.2.06 Lacs Since The Return Of Income Was Filed With A Delay. The Assessee Filed Return Of Income On 31-03-2019 Which Was Processed U/S 143(1) On 30-09-2020 Denying Impugned Deductions To The Assessee. During Appellate Proceedings, The Assessee Relied On Certain Case Laws

For Appellant: Ms. R. Reshma (Advocate) - Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashwin D. Gowda (Addl.CIT) - Ld. Sr. DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 142Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 80Section 80ASection 80P

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “ए” "ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय "ी एबी टी

Allappalayam Paccs, Coimbatore vs. Income Tax Officer, Coimbatore

The appeal stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2795/CHNY/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Feb 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2795/Chny/2024 (िनधा'रणवष' / Assessment Year: 2019-20) K 1853 Allapalayam Primary Agricultural Ito बनाम/ Co-Operative Credit Society Non-Corporate Ward-1(3), Ruthriampalayam, Allapalayam Post Coimbatore. Vs. Annur Tk, Coimbatore Dist. 641 653 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabak-0988-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms. R. Reshma (Advocate) - Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Ashwin D. Gowda (Addl.Cit) - Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27-01-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-02-2025

For Appellant: Ms. R. Reshma (Advocate) - Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashwin D. Gowda (Addl.CIT) - Ld. Sr. DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 142Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 80Section 80ASection 80P(2)(a)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “ए” "ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय "ी एबी टी

Guru Anand Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd., Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer WD 42 1 2, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5695/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: BEFORESHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member), SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Arvind Wadke, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kiran Unavekar(SR DR)
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 155Section 246ASection 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “K(SMC)”, MUMBAI BEFORESHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR

Guru Anand Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer WD 42 1 2, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5691/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member), SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Arvind Wadke, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kiran Unavekar(SR DR)
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 155Section 246ASection 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “K(SMC)”, MUMBAI BEFORESHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR

Chandra Goswami, Chittaranjan Park, New Delhi vs. Addl JCIT, Mumbai

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 3230/DEL/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Feb 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 3Section 36Section 36(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

sole reason that the same had been deposited on or before the due date under the corresponding statute than that of filing section 139(1) return. 4. It is in this factual backdrop that the Revenue vehemently argues that such a disallowance of ESI/PF claim which is otherwise held ... assessee beyond the due date prescribed under the relevant Acts, but before the due date of filing of the return of income under Section 139 (1) of the Act of 1961, could be held as the income of the appellant/assessee under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section

Smt. Pinky Jhawar, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Raipur

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes and Ground No

ITA 552/RPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur31 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 552/Rpr/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2018-19)

For Appellant: Shri Sakshi Gopal Aggrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. L. Anuragi, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 250

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, रायपुर "ायपीठ, रायपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR "ी रिवश सूद, "ाियक सद" एवं

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(1), Visakhapatnam vs. Ssnr Projects Private Limited, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 461/VIZ/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S Balakrishnanआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.461/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2020-21) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Ssnr Projects Private Tax, Circle-3(1), Limited, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aarcs 2464 C (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""थ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Assessee By : Sri Samuel Nagadesi ""ाथ"कीओरसे/ Revenue By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 17/12/2024 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of : 31/01/2025 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Sri Samuel NagadesiFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 90

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, िवशाखापटणम पीठ, िवशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM "ी दु"ू" आर एल रे"ी,उपा

Ritesh Bansal, Khajuri Bazar, Indore vs. PCIT, Indore-1, Aayakar Bhawan, Opp. White Church, White Church Road, Residency Area, Indore

ITA 436/IND/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaassessment Year:2014-15 Ritesh Bansal, Pr. Cit-1, G-16, Ganesh Complex Indore बनाम/ Khajuri Bazar, Vs. Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Acipb4025C Assessee By Shri Kunal Agrawal & Harshit Chowkse, Ars Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 17.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 31.01.2025

Section 10(38)Section 132Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 68Section 69C

आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, इंदौर"ायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND

Prof. Rajendra Singh Shikshan Samiti, Mandsaur vs. DCIT, CPC Bengaluru and ITO, Exemption, Ujjain

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 420/IND/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Jan 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Udayan Das Guptaassessment Year:2019-20 Prof. Rajendra Singh Dcit, Cpc Gangaluru Shikshan Samiti, Mandsaur बनाम/ Saraswati Shishu Mandir Vs. Keshav Nagar (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaeap0905C Assessee By Shri Apurva Mehta & Rajesh Mehta, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31.01.2025

Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250

said sub section in respect of such income , has not been furnished on or before the due date specified under section 139(1) for furnishing the return . 8.1 This issue has already been decided by the Hon’ble Gujrat High Court in the case of Association of Indian Panel board