← 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)

Kohinoor Televideo Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Circle 5(2)(1) Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

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

ITA 6325/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Date of Hearing
Section 139(1)Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SMT. RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Rourkela Wholesale Consumer Cooperative Stores Limited, Rourkela vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Rourkela

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 38/CTK/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack29 Jan 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalassessment Year : 2018-19 Rourkela Rourkela Wholesale W Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Income Tax Officer, Ward Consumer Consumer Cooperative Cooperative Rourkela Stores Tores Limited., Limited., Nanda Bhawan, Main Road, Bisra Bhawan, Main Road, Bisra Road,, Rourkela Road,, Rourkela Pan/Gir No. No.Aaaar 0626A (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K.Sarangi, Ca Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 29/01/20 2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29/01/20 025

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Sarangi, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr DR
Section 139(1)Section 145(3)Section 148Section 148ASection 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH

Rourkela Wholesale Consumer Cooperative Stores Limited, Rourkela vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Rourkela

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 37/CTK/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack29 Jan 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalassessment Year : 2019-20 Rourkela Rourkela Wholesale Wholesale Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Income Tax Officer, Ward Consumer Consumer Cooperative Cooperative Rourkela Sstores Sstores Limited., Limited., Nanda Bhawan, Main Road, Bisra Bhawan, Main Road, Bisra Road,, Rourkela Road,, Rourkela Pan/Gir No. No.Aaaar 0626A (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K.Sarangi, Ca Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Sarangi, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 270A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH

Punjabhai Alabhai Madam, Devbhumi Dwarka vs. ITO WD 1 Dwarka, Jamnagar

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

ITA 606/RJT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot29 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 606/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Hybrid Hearing) Punjabhai Alabhai Madam, Vs. Ito, Ward 1, 75/1, Vadi Area Bharatpur, Dwarka – 360510, Bhanavad, Nr. Hanuman Mandir, Jamnagar Devbhumi, Dwarka – 360510 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Dfjpm4987R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 27/01/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29/01/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre [(In Short “Nfac/Ld. Cit(A)”] Vide Order Dated 28.06.2024, Which In Turn Assessment Order Passed By Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department / Assessing Officer Under Section 154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Followed: 1) The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Confirming Penalty Of Rs. 65,246/- Imposed By The Ld. Ao U/S. 271B Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 144Section 147Section 154Section 271B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, AM. & DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JM आयकरअपीलसं

Narsapur Christian Hospital Association, West Godavari vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward, Rajahmundry

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 231/VIZ/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam29 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble

Section 11Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

found that the assessee has not filed Form No. 9A & Form No. 10 within the time allowed under section 139(1) of the Act and therefore issued show-cause notice calling for objections from the assessee for disallowance of the same. In response, assessee filed a reply stating that accrued ... Departmental Representative [hereinafter in short “Ld.DR”] submitted that the assessee has not filed the return of income within the prescribed time allowed under section 139(1) of the Act and accordingly Form No. 9A & Form No. 10 are also filed belatedly, after the expiry of time limit allowed under section

Savan Sabeer, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Kalpetta

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 657/COCH/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2018-19 Savan Sabeer .......... Appellant K.K. Reidency, Hal Vinayaka Nagar Road Konera Agrahara, Bangalore 560016 [Pan: Dvops2307L] Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Ward - 1, Kalpetta Appellant By: Shri P.M. Veeramani, Ca Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 16.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.01.2025

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Veeramani, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2Section 270A

business of dealing in vehicles, land & building, etc. No regular return of income was filed by the assessee under the provisions of section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). However, the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Kalpatta (hereinafter called "the AO") formed an opinion that come

The Pazhambalacode Service Co-Operative Bank Limited No P 492, Palakkad vs. ITO, Ward 5, Palakkad

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

ITA 347/COCH/2024[A.Y 2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Jan 2025

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm Assessment Year: 2011-12 The Pazhambalacode Service .......... Appellant Co-Op. Bank Ltd. Pazhambalacode P.O. Alathur Taluk, Palakkad 678544 [Pan: Aaaap4158K] Vs. The Income Tax Officer - 5 .......... Respondent Aayakar Bhavan, English Chruch Road Palakkad 670014

For Appellant: Shri Amaljith, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 80P

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM AND SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV, JM

The Janseva Trust, Godhra vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(1)(2), Vadodara (Now Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Godhra)

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, subject to the above directions

ITA 851/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.851/Ahd/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 The Janseva Trust The Ito बनाम/ Opp. Gyandeep School Ward-4(1)(1)(2), Vadodara V/S. Nr.Jivanlal Hospital (Now Ito, Ward-1, Godhra – 389 001 (Gujarat) Godhra – 389 001) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaatt 2888 D (अपीलाथ$/ Appellant) (%& यथ$/ Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Nikhita Bhamblani & Amrin Pathan, Ars Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/01/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], Dated 29.08.2023, For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2017-18. The Said Appeal Arises From The Assessment Order Passed By The Income Tax Officer (Ito), Ward 4(1)(2), Vadodara [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ao”], Under Section 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act)”], On 24.12.2019. The Janseva Trust Vs. Ito Asst. Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Ms. Nikhita Bhamblani &For Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.DR
Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

being operational during the financial year relevant to the assessment year under consideration, the assessee did not file its return of income under Section 139(1) of the Act. The AO, based on information gathered during "Operation Clean Money," observed that the assessee had deposited substantial cash and credits

Sukiba Management Services Private Limited, Nashik Maharashtra vs. ACIT Circle 1 Nashik, Nashik Maharashtra

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

ITA 1790/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jan 2025AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Department byFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 10Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 438

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “बी” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA

Cofre Do Fundo Da Cruz Al to De, Bambolim vs. Income Tax Officer, (Exemption) Ward - 1, Panaji

The appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 203/PAN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji28 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliassessment Year : 2017-18 Cofre Do Fundo Da Cruz Alto De Bambolim 101/1, Holy Cross Shrine, Bambolim Gmc Complex, Bambolim, Goa-403202 Pan:Aabtc0675N . . . . . . . Appellant V/S The Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward-1, Panaji. . . . . . . . Respondent

For Appellant: Smt Pratibha R [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Narendra Reddy [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 11Section 119(2)(b)Section 12A(1)(b)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 246A(1)Section 250Section 253(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PANAJI BENCH, PANAJI BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI

Chanda Devi, Samastipur vs. ITO, Ward- 3 (3), Samastipur

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 355/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna28 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.355/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Chanda Devi……………………….....…..…………………....Appellant C/O Hemant Kumar Gupta, Kalyanpur, Samastipur, Bihar-848302. [Pan: Buopd4526K] Vs. Ito, Ward-3(3), Samastipur..….…….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Abhi Sarkar, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kumar, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 27, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 28, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 30.01.2024 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 & Engaged In Business Of Cattle Feed. The Assessing Officer Noticed During The Assessment Proceedings That The Assessee Deposited Rs.1979000/- In His Bank Account During Demonetization Period & The Assessee Did Not File Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Within Due Date Prescribed U/S 139(1) Of The Act. Accordingly, The Assessing Officer Issued Notice U/S 142(1) Of The Act Requesting The Assessee To File Return. However, The Assessee Failed To Comply With The Notice As Such

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 208Section 249(4)(b)Section 250

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

Pandalapaka Primary Agricultural Co-Op Society Ltd, East Godavari vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1, Kakinada

ITA 438/VIZ/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: 29.03.2022 After Obtaining Prior Approval From The Pcit, Visakhapatnam 1. In Response, Assessee Submitted Reply Through E-Mail On 24.03.2022 Stating That Assessee Is Eligible For Deduction Under Section 80P Of The Act & Therefore Issuance Of Notice Under Section 148A(A) Of The Act Is Not Warranted. Ld. Ao Did Not Accept The Reply Of The Assessee & Decided That It Is A Fit Case Of Issue Of Notice Under Section 148 Of The Act For The A.Y. 2018-19 & Thereafter Passed Order Under Section 148A(D) Of The Act On 30.03.2022.

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 148ASection 80P

respect of certain incomes" shall be allowed only when the assessee furnished the return of income within the due date specified under section 139(1) of the Act. Section 80AC(2) is extracted below for reference

Pandalapaka Primary Agricultural Co-Op Credit Society Ltd, East Godavari vs. Income-Tax Officer-Ward-1, Kakinada

ITA 437/VIZ/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.437 & 438/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2018-19 & 2020-21) Pandalapaka Primary Agricultural V. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 1 Income Tax Office Co-Op Credit Society Ltd., 3Rd Floor, Deepthi Towers 5-28/1, Pandalapaka Main Road, Kakinada – 533001 Biccavole Mandal – 533345 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aabap2382G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 148ASection 80P

respect of certain incomes” shall be allowed only when the assessee furnished the return of income within the due date specified under section 139(1) of the Act. Section 80AC(2) is extracted below for reference: - “80AC. …….. (ii) the 1st day of April, 2018, any deduction is admissible under

Vengola Service Co Op Bank Ltd, Ernakulam vs. ITO, Ward 2, Aluva

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

ITA 565/COCH/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Keshav Dubey, Jm Assessment Year: 2018-19 Vengola Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. .......... Appellant 13/621 Ab, Kunnathunadu Vengola P.O., Ernakulam 683556 [Pan: Aaaav1709N] Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Ward - 2, Aluva Appellant By: Shri Lokanathan R., Ca Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 06.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.01.2025

For Appellant: Shri Lokanathan R., CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 270ASection 80ASection 80A(5)Section 80P

were made by the assessee in a return of income filed by him. That return could be under section 139(1), (4), 142(1) or 148, and to be valid, had to be filed within the due date contemplated under those provisions. Under section 80A(5), the claim for deduction ... furnish a return of his income for such assessment year on or before the due date specified in section 139(1) of the Income-tax Act. In other words, after April 1, 2018, even if the assessee 4 Vengola Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. made its claim for deduction under

Kanichukulangara Service Co Operative Bank Limited, Kanichukulangara vs. ITO, Ward 2, Alappuzha

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

ITA 653/COCH/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Keshav Dubey, Jm Assessment Year: 2017-18 Kanichukulangara Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. .......... Appellant Kanichukulangara, Alappuzha 688544 [Pan: Aacak2630D] Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Ward - 5, Alappuzha Appellant By: ------- None ------- Respondent By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.01.2025

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 142Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 80ASection 80A(5)Section 80P

were made by the assessee in a return of income filed by him. That return could be under section 139(1), (4), 142(1) or 148, and to be valid, had to be filed within the due date contemplated under those provisions. Under section 80A(5), the claim for deduction ... furnish a return of his income for such assessment year on or before the due date specified in section 139(1) of the Income-tax Act. In other words, after April 1, 2018, even if the assessee made its claim for deduction under section 80P in a return filed within

Sh. Dheeraj Singh Sisodiya, Kota vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Kota

In the result the ground no

ITA 936/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 139Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69

efflux of time or by mandate of the Act. Since, the assessee neither made any such claim in the original return filed under Section 139(1) of the Act nor in regular assessment proceedings by way of filing any revised return therefore returns filed in response to notice under Section ... file a return under sub-section (3) within the time permitted and only upon which the same would be treated as return under Section 139(1) of the Act. Counsel for the revenue submitted that when no return in terms of sub-section (3) of Section 139 claiming carry forward

Sh. Dheeraj Singh Sisodiya, Kota vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Kota

In the result the ground no

ITA 935/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 139Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69

efflux of time or by mandate of the Act. Since, the assessee neither made any such claim in the original return filed under Section 139(1) of the Act nor in regular assessment proceedings by way of filing any revised return therefore returns filed in response to notice under Section ... file a return under sub-section (3) within the time permitted and only upon which the same would be treated as return under Section 139(1) of the Act. Counsel for the revenue submitted that when no return in terms of sub-section (3) of Section 139 claiming carry forward

Sh. Dheeraj Singh Sisodiya, Kota vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Kota

In the result the ground no

ITA 934/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 139Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69

efflux of time or by mandate of the Act. Since, the assessee neither made any such claim in the original return filed under Section 139(1) of the Act nor in regular assessment proceedings by way of filing any revised return therefore returns filed in response to notice under Section ... file a return under sub-section (3) within the time permitted and only upon which the same would be treated as return under Section 139(1) of the Act. Counsel for the revenue submitted that when no return in terms of sub-section (3) of Section 139 claiming carry forward

Sh. Dheeraj Singh Sisodiya, Kota vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Kota

In the result the ground no

ITA 933/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 139Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69

efflux of time or by mandate of the Act. Since, the assessee neither made any such claim in the original return filed under Section 139(1) of the Act nor in regular assessment proceedings by way of filing any revised return therefore returns filed in response to notice under Section ... file a return under sub-section (3) within the time permitted and only upon which the same would be treated as return under Section 139(1) of the Act. Counsel for the revenue submitted that when no return in terms of sub-section (3) of Section 139 claiming carry forward

Sh. Dheeraj Singh Sisodiya, Kota vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Kota

In the result the ground no

ITA 932/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.931 to 936/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2014-15 to 2018-19 Dheeraj Singh Sisodiya 005, (Nayagaun) Ram Ganmandi, Kota बनाम DCIT, Vill. Beedmandi Vs. Central Circle, Kota स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: APAPS 6392 E अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by : Sh. P. C. Parwal, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Mrs. Alka Gautam,

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 139Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69

efflux of time or by mandate of the Act. Since, the assessee neither made any such claim in the original return filed under Section 139(1) of the Act nor in regular assessment proceedings by way of filing any revised return therefore returns filed in response to notice under Section ... file a return under sub-section (3) within the time permitted and only upon which the same would be treated as return under Section 139(1) of the Act. Counsel for the revenue submitted that when no return in terms of sub-section (3) of Section 139 claiming carry forward