← 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)

Balasaheb Ganpat Jare, Beed vs. ITO Ward 1(5), Aurangabad

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

ITA 2328/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)Section 69

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.2328/PUN/2024

Prakashbapu Patil Gramin Bigar Sheti Sahakari Pat Sanstha Ltd, Sangli vs. ACIT, Circle- Sangli, Sangli

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1328/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1325& 1328/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15 & 2015-16 Prakashbapu Patil Gramin V The Acit, Bigar Sheti Sahakari Pat S Circle-Sangli. Sanstha Ltd., Sahakari Pat Sanstha Ltd., Savali Miraj, Sangli – 416410. Maharashtra. Pan: Aaaap1616N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Smt. Deepa Khare – Ar Revenue By Shri Rajesh Gawali – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 19/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 23/12/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] For Assessment Years 2014-15 & 2015-16; Dated 05.04.2024 & 10.04.2024 Respectively; Passed U/Sec.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. Since The Issue Involved Is Common

Section 139(1)Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

members. Assessee had not earned any other income and entire income pertains to the said activity. Assessee filed its Return of Income under section 139(1) of the Act for A.Y.2014-15 on 13.03.2015 declaring total income at Rs.NIL and claiming deduction u/sec.80P of the Act. During the assessment proceedings, Assessing ... claim. 6.1 The second ground on which Assessing Officer has disallowed 80P is that assessee had not filed Return of Income under section 139(1) of the Act. 6.2 However, in the penalty order, the Assessing Officer has levied penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act only

Prakashbapu Patil Gramin Bigar Sheti Sahakari Pat Sanstha Ltd, Sangli vs. ACIT, Circle Sangli, Sangli

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1327/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1324, 1326 & 1327/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14, 2015-16 & 2014-15 Prakashbapu Patil Gramin V The Acit, Bigar Sheti Sahakari Pat S Circle-Sangli. Sanstha Ltd., Sahakari Pat Sanstha Ltd., Savali Miraj, Sangli – 416410. Maharashtra. Pan: Aaaap1616N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Smt. Deepa Khare – Ar Revenue By Shri Rajesh Gawali – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 19/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 23/12/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] For Assessment Years 2013-14, 2015-16 & 2014-15; Dated 09.04.2024, 10.04.2024 & 09.04.2024 Respectively; Passed U/Sec.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. Since The Issue Involved Is Common, All These Three Appeals Were Heard Together

Section 139(1)Section 250Section 269TSection 271ESection 273

members. Assessee had not earned any other income and entire income pertains to the said activity. Assessee filed its Return of Income under section 139(1) of the Act for A.Y.2013-14. Ld.Authorised Representative(ld.AR) for the Assessee submitted that this is an appeal against the penalty order under section 271E

Prakashbapu Patil Gramin Bigar Sheti Sahakari Pat Sanstha Ltd, Sangli vs. ACIT, Circle Sangli, Sangli

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1326/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1324, 1326 & 1327/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14, 2015-16 & 2014-15 Prakashbapu Patil Gramin V The Acit, Bigar Sheti Sahakari Pat S Circle-Sangli. Sanstha Ltd., Sahakari Pat Sanstha Ltd., Savali Miraj, Sangli – 416410. Maharashtra. Pan: Aaaap1616N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Smt. Deepa Khare – Ar Revenue By Shri Rajesh Gawali – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 19/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 23/12/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] For Assessment Years 2013-14, 2015-16 & 2014-15; Dated 09.04.2024, 10.04.2024 & 09.04.2024 Respectively; Passed U/Sec.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. Since The Issue Involved Is Common, All These Three Appeals Were Heard Together

Section 139(1)Section 250Section 269TSection 271ESection 273

members. Assessee had not earned any other income and entire income pertains to the said activity. Assessee filed its Return of Income under section 139(1) of the Act for A.Y.2013-14. Ld.Authorised Representative(ld.AR) for the Assessee submitted that this is an appeal against the penalty order under section 271E

Prakashbapu Patil Gramin Bigar Sheti Sahakari Pat Sanstha Ltd, Sangli vs. ACIT Circle Sangli, Sangli

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1325/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1325& 1328/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15 & 2015-16 Prakashbapu Patil Gramin V The Acit, Bigar Sheti Sahakari Pat S Circle-Sangli. Sanstha Ltd., Sahakari Pat Sanstha Ltd., Savali Miraj, Sangli – 416410. Maharashtra. Pan: Aaaap1616N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Smt. Deepa Khare – Ar Revenue By Shri Rajesh Gawali – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 19/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 23/12/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] For Assessment Years 2014-15 & 2015-16; Dated 05.04.2024 & 10.04.2024 Respectively; Passed U/Sec.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. Since The Issue Involved Is Common

Section 139(1)Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

members. Assessee had not earned any other income and entire income pertains to the said activity. Assessee filed its Return of Income under section 139(1) of the Act for A.Y.2014-15 on 13.03.2015 declaring total income at Rs.NIL and claiming deduction u/sec.80P of the Act. During the assessment proceedings, Assessing ... claim. 6.1 The second ground on which Assessing Officer has disallowed 80P is that assessee had not filed Return of Income under section 139(1) of the Act. 6.2 However, in the penalty order, the Assessing Officer has levied penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act only

Prakashbapu Patil Gramin Bigar Sheti Sahakari Pat Sanstha Ltd, Sangli vs. ACIT, Circle Sangli, Sangli

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1324/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1324, 1326 & 1327/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14, 2015-16 & 2014-15 Prakashbapu Patil Gramin V The Acit, Bigar Sheti Sahakari Pat S Circle-Sangli. Sanstha Ltd., Sahakari Pat Sanstha Ltd., Savali Miraj, Sangli – 416410. Maharashtra. Pan: Aaaap1616N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Smt. Deepa Khare – Ar Revenue By Shri Rajesh Gawali – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 19/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 23/12/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] For Assessment Years 2013-14, 2015-16 & 2014-15; Dated 09.04.2024, 10.04.2024 & 09.04.2024 Respectively; Passed U/Sec.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. Since The Issue Involved Is Common, All These Three Appeals Were Heard Together

Section 139(1)Section 250Section 269TSection 271ESection 273

members. Assessee had not earned any other income and entire income pertains to the said activity. Assessee filed its Return of Income under section 139(1) of the Act for A.Y.2013-14. Ld.Authorised Representative(ld.AR) for the Assessee submitted that this is an appeal against the penalty order under section 271E

Jayappa Reddy, Bengaluru vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru - 1, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1331/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year: 2013-14 Sri Jayappa Reddy No.1, Cholanayakanahalli R.T. Nagar Vs. Pcit Bangalore 560 032 Bengaluru-1 Bengaluru Pan No : Agapj9691E Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri Prathik, A.R. Respondent By : Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 19.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2024

For Appellant: Sri Prathik, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 139(1)Section 148Section 263Section 271Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271F

income and also initiated penalty u/s 271F of the Act for not filing the return of income within the time limit provided in section 139(1) & 139(4) of the Act. 5.1 On examining the case record of the assessee, the ld. PCIT observed that

DCIT, Central Circle - 7(1), Mumbai vs. A P Trading Co, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue and Cross Objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1434/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 153A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘A’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SMT RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 4(1), Kolkata, Income Tax Kolkata vs. Lakhotia Transport Co. Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1699/KOL/2024[2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Dec 2024

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sailen Samadder, DR
Section 1Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)Section 151(2)Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, C.C. - 4(1), Income Tax, Kolkata vs. Lakhotia Transport Co. Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1698/KOL/2024[2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Dec 2024

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sailen Samadder, DR
Section 1Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)Section 151(2)Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM

Jagannathan Baskar, Hosur vs. ITO, Ward-1, Hosur

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

ITA 2629/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2629/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-2018) Jagannathan Baskar, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, H88, New Astc Hudco, Ward -1, Mahalakshmi Nagar, Hosur Hosur 635 109. [Pan: Adqpb 9089F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri B.B. Sathyamurthy, C.A., ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. D. Komali Krishna, Irs, Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 17.12.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20.12.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

For Appellant: Shri B.B. Sathyamurthy, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. D. Komali Krishna, IRS, CIT
Section 10Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154

profession of tax consultancy services for part of the subject Assessment year The Appellant had filed his return of income under Section 139(1) of the Act, on 02 August 2017, offering income from Salaries of Rs. 25,56,189 and total income of Rs. 24,06,190 (after allowing ... profession of tax consultancy services for part of the subject A.Υ. 1.2 The Appellant had filed his return of income under Section 139(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) on 02 August 2017, offering income from Salaries of Rs. 25,56,189 and total income

Manek Metal Industries, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 19(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4277/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhrimanek Metal Industries V/S. Ito, W-19(2)(3), Mumbai 1, Jyoti Studio Compound, बनाम Maharashtra. Kennedy Bridge, Nana Chowk, Mumbai, Grant Road S.O, Mumbai-400007 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaafm0609F Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: S. L. JainFor Respondent: R. R. Makwana
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 37

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SMT. RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

DCIT, Central Circle- 4(1), Mumbai vs. Kanakia Spaces Realty Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross-

ITA 1639/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT, D/R
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 35A

| sree arttetta aftrazor -aardis, Has | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI & BEFORE SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle, Hisar vs. Synergy Waste Management Private Limited, Hisar

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 3557/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahmanita No. 3557/Del/2023 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Dcit, Vs Synergy Waste Management Pvt. Circle, Ltd., #168, Sector-27-28, Hisar, Hisar, Haryana-125001 Haryana-125001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaics9088H Assessee By : Sh. S. K. Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Sahil Kumar Bansal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 12.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.12.2024 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2017-18, Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/105727025(1) Dated 20.10.2023, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. S. K. Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Sahil Kumar Bansal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 4Section 801A(4)Section 80I

fact that the return of income has not been filed as per the time allowed for filing original return of income as per section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. However, appellant has explained that it was on account of technical reasons that the return of income ... claim of exemption u/s 80IA of the Act on account of non-filing of the return within the prescribed time limit as per section 139(1) of the Act. We are in agreement with the contention of the ld. Counsel that in this process undertaken by the CPC, the assessee

ACIT Circle-58(1), Delhi vs. Magical Enterprises L.L.P, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1059/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Vimal Kumar[Assessment Year : 2016-17] Acit Vs Magical Enterprises L.L.P Circle-58(1) 80, Kiran Vihar Delhi. New Delhi-110092. Pan-Abafm4809Q Appellant Respondent

Section 10Section 112Section 115QSection 143(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “E” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI VIMAL

Ahmedabad Kankaria Adarian, Ahmedabad vs. CPC, Bengaluru, Jurisdiction AO : the ITO Ward-1(Exemption), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 601/AHD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Dec 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr.Brr Kumarshri Tr Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate with Shri Parimalsinh B Parmar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.DR
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 234A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR.BRR KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT SHRI TR SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Burst Healthcare Private Limited, Pune Maharashtra vs. Asst. Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 1509/PUN/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Dec 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

Section 139(1)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 80

under section 80-IAC amounting to Rs.30,40,564/- on the basis that Form 10CCB was not filed within the prescribed time under section 139(1), despite the Appellant obtaining the audit report in Form 10CCB and attempting to file it multiple times due to technical glitches

Satyanarayana Viswanadha, Machilipatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Machilipatnam

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 223/VIZ/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam19 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.223/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2012-13) Satyanarayana Viswanadha V. Ito – Ward – 1 Machilipatnam D.No. 21/411, Bhaskarapuram Krishna District - 521001 Machilipatnam – 521001 Andhra Pradesh Krishna District Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aatpv0775E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 54Section 54F

deposit the said Page No. 6 I.T.A.No.223/VIZ/2024 Satyanarayana Viswanadha amount in capital gains account scheme before the due date prescribed under section 139(1) of the IT Act ? " This was answered by Hon'ble High Court as follows : "As is clear from Sub Section (4) in the event

B.R. Gopi, HUF, Thanjavur vs. ITO, Ward-1, Thanjavur

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

ITA 2628/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2628/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-2018) B. R. Gopi (Huf) Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 1081C, Mission Street, Ward 1, M. Chavady, Thanjavur Thanjavur 613 001. [Pan: Aaihb 1928G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. D. Komali Krishna, Irs, Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 17.12.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19.12.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

For Appellant: Shri. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. D. Komali Krishna, IRS, CIT
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ‘बी’ "ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ (SMC) BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय "ी मनोज

Kaveri Trust, Delhi vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose in above terms

ITA 3664/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2020-21

Section 11Section 139(1)Section 143(1)

sole reason that it had failed to file/upload its prescribed form 10B tax audit report within the due date of filing section 139(1) return of income. 2 3. The revenue fairly concedes that the assessee had indeed filed/uploaded its tax audit report on 12.07.2022. (page 44 in paper book