← 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)

ACIT-19(3), Mumbai vs. Ronak Gold, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals are dismissed

ITA 5195/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai03 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Ms. Padmavathy S, Am

Section 131Section 131(1)Section 132ASection 139(1)Section 153ASection 40A(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VP AND MS. PADMAVATHY S, AM ITA

ACIT-19(3), Mumbai vs. Ronak Gold, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals are dismissed

ITA 5194/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai03 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Ms. Padmavathy S, Am

Section 131Section 131(1)Section 132ASection 139(1)Section 153ASection 40A(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VP AND MS. PADMAVATHY S, AM ITA

Amit Gupta and Sons HUF, Meerut vs. DCIT Central Circle, Meerut

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1541/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganeshamit Gupta & Sons Huf, Vs. Dcit, A-88, Defence Colony, Central Circle, Mawana, Meerut, Up Meerut (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aagha5778R Assessee By : Shri Ankit Kumar, Adv Shri Lalit Mohan, Ca Revenue By: Shri Poojan Rana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18/11/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 03/12/2024

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Poojan Rana, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 127(2)Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153CSection 153DSection 69ASection 69C

peruse the materials available 3. on record. The return of income for the assessment year 2013-14 was filed by the assessee under section 139(1) of the Act on 19-07-2013 declaring total income of Rs.12,69,960/-. A search and seizure action was conducted under section

Debanjan Chatterjee, Kolkata vs. D.D.I.T., CPC, Bengaluru, Bengalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1959/KOL/2024[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Dec 2024AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 1959/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-2022 Debanjan Chatterjee,……..…………….…………Appellant C-3/14, East Enclave Cooperative Society, Rajarhat, Kolkata-700156 [Pan:Aezpc7707H] -Vs.- Deputy Director Of Income Tax,………………Respondent Cpc, Bengluru, Bangalore-560500 Appearances By: Shri Nilesh Kariya, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Sanjay Paul, Addl. Cit,Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: November 28, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: December 02, 2024 O R D E R

Section 139Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 90

rule (9) of rule 128 of the Income-tax rules, 1962 before the due date for filing the return of income under section 139(1) the Income-tax Act, 1961 and also mandates that filing of Form No. 67 shall precede the filing of the return. Therefore ... also filed. The credit was not allowed since From No. 67 was filed beyond the date for filing the return of income under Section 139(1) of the Act. In the case of Mahua Bagchi Vs. ACIT (supra) relied upon by the assessee, it is held as under: “5. After

Kamlesh D Patel, Chegur, Rangareddy vs. ACIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Vadodara

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

ITA 1178/AHD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Nov 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 139(1)Section 154Section 68Section 90

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “B” BENCH Before: Smt. Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Member And Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

Sukhadev Bapurao Kachare, Sangli vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 4, Sangli

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1861/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

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

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

।आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ”एस एम सी” "ायपीठ पुणेम"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “SMC” :: PUNE BEFORE DR.DIPAK

Gangamagrotech, Hindupur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Hindupur

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 890/HYD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: : Shri Waseem UR Rehman, SR-DR
Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 68

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘B’ Bench, Hyderabad BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO

Gangamagrotech, Hindupur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Hindupur

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 889/HYD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: : Shri Waseem UR Rehman, SR-DR
Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 68

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘B’ Bench, Hyderabad BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO

Gangamagrotech, Hindupur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Hindupur

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 845/HYD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: : Shri Waseem UR Rehman, SR-DR
Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 68

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘B’ Bench, Hyderabad BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO

Balaji Metal and Sponge Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 5(4), Kolkata

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

ITA 1486/KOL/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Nov 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubey

Section 139Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण कोलकाता 'सी' पीठ, कोलकाता में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘C’ BENCH, KOLKATA श्री राजेश

Simoco Systems and Infrastructure Solutions Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO Ward 2 (1), Kolkata

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

ITA 123/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Indranil Banerjee, ARFor Respondent: Ankur Goyal, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT

Kadavathur Service Co-Operativ Bank Ltd, Kadavathur vs. ACIT, Ward-2, Kannur

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

ITA 213/COCH/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Nov 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri.Arun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Senior AR
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 142(1)Section 148Section 80(5)Section 80ASection 80A(5)Section 80P

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 80(5), the claim ... furnish a return of his income for such assessment year on or before the due date specified in section 139(1) of the IT Act. In other words, after 1-4-2018, even if the assessee makes his claim for deduction under section 80P in a return filed within time

The Koonathara Milk Producers Co-Operative Society Ltd, Ottapalam vs. ITO, Ward-3, Palakkad

In the result, the appeal and the stay application filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 169/COCH/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Nov 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm & Sa No. 16/Coch/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri V.P. Narayanan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 148Section 80ASection 80A(5)Section 80P

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 ... furnish a return of his income for such assessment year on or before the due date specified in Section 139(1) of the IT Act. In other words, after 1.4.2018, even if the assessee makes his claim for deduction under Section 80P in a return filed within time under Sections

Pazhayannur Farmers Service Co-Op Bank Ltd, Thrissur vs. The ITO Ward 2(4), Thrissur

In the result, the appeals and the stay applications filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 228/COCH/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Nov 2024AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri Amal Jith, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 80Section 80ASection 80A(5)Section 80P

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 ... furnish a return of his income for such assessment year on or before the due date specified in Section 139(1) of the 4 Pazhayannur Farmers Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. IT Act. In other words, after 1.4.2018, even if the assessee makes his claim for deduction under Section

Pazhayannur Farmers Service Co-Op Bank Ltd, Thrissur vs. The ITO Ward 2(4), Thrissur

In the result, the appeals and the stay applications filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 227/COCH/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Nov 2024AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Shri Amal Jith, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 80Section 80ASection 80A(5)Section 80P

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 ... furnish a return of his income for such assessment year on or before the due date specified in Section 139(1) of the 4 Pazhayannur Farmers Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. IT Act. In other words, after 1.4.2018, even if the assessee makes his claim for deduction under Section

Idappadi Panchayat Union Empl. & Teachers Co-Op. Thrift & Credit Soceity Ltd., Salem vs. ITO, Ward-1(6), Salem

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

ITA 2333/CHNY/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Nov 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2333/Chny/2024 िनधा8रण वष8 /Assessment Year: 2021-22 Idappadi Panchayat Union The Income Tax Officer, Employees & Teachers Vs. Ward-1(6), Co.Operative Thrift & Credit Society Salem. Limited S 1497, Door No.3, Kannara Street, Bazaar Street, Idappadi, Salem – 637 101. [Pan: Aaabi 0120P]

For Appellant: Shri S. Senthil Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. G. Saratha, Addl. CIT
Section 119(2)(b)Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 80Section 80ASection 80P

which includes section 80P of the Act also, if the return of income was not filed before the due date prescribed under Section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act. Applying the principle laid down in the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case

Chikkannaputtamma Educational Trust, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, (Exemptions)Ward-1, Bengaluru

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

ITA 1513/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Sri Pranav G. Ambekar, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 1Section 11Section 119Section 12ASection 234Section 234ASection 250

ITA No.1513/Bang/2024 Chikkanna Puttamma Educational Trust, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE

Gursharan Kaur, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 24(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4270/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri. Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Gursharan Kaur Ito Ward 24 (1)(1) A-301, Skylark Chs, Opp. Vikram Piramal Chamber, Mumbai – Petrol Pump A Bunglows Juhu Versova Vs. 400012. Link Road, 4 Bunglow Andheri West Mumbai -400 053 Pan/Gir No. Bkopk8032M (Assessee) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. Tejas Chandrana Respondent By : Mr. Tushar Mohite Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.11.2024 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee, Challenging The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi (‘Ld.Cit(A) For Short),National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short) Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act'), Pertaining To The Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ For Short) 2020-21. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Following Grounds Of Appeal Are Without Prejudice To Each Other. 1. The Learned Cit (A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Upholding The Order Passed By Central Processing Center ("Cpc") U/S 154 Of The Act. 2. The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Upholding The Action Of The Cpc Of Denying Relief U/S 90/90A Due To Late Filing Of Form 67. 3. The Learned Cit (A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Sustaining The Levy Of Interest U/S. 234B & 234C Of The Act.”

For Appellant: Shri. Tejas ChandranaFor Respondent: Mr. Tushar Mohite Sr. DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 234BSection 250Section 90

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K(SMC)” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI. OM PRAKASH KANT, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL

Brahma Chandra Yadav, Uttar Pradesh vs. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer Range 17, Ward 2(1)(1), Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh

In the result, all these appeals are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3034/DEL/2024[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2024AY 2021-2022

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roybrahma Chandra Yadav Vs. Jurisdictional Assessing 1G 201 Awho Township, Officer Range-17, Gurjinder Vihar, Greater Ward 2(1)(1), Cgo, Noida, Gautam Buddha Complex-I Purani Hapur Nagar, Up-201310 Chungi, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh – 201002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Abfpy5867K Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Hemant Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

1 Brahma Chandra Yadav THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, DELHI BEFORE MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Brahma Chandra

Sahkari Ganna Vikas Samiti Ltd., Lakhimpur Kheri vs. ACIT, Sitapur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 351/LKW/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Nov 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2019-20 Sahkari Ganna Vikas Samiti Acit Sitapur/Cpc, V. Limited Income Tax Deptt., C/O Ayyubi Chamber, Raniganj, Bengaluru-560500. Lakhimpur Kheri, U.P.-241001. Pan:Aawfs0887P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Shubham Rastogi, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 26 11 2024

For Appellant: Shri Shubham Rastogi, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 80ASection 80P

Section 80AC of the Act; as the assessee had not filed return of income within the time limit prescribed under section 139(1) of the Act. In the present case, the return was filed on 01.11.2019 whereas the due date of filing of return prescribed under section 139(1 ... return was filed after due date of filing of return prescribed under section 139(1) of the Act, the return filed by the assessee was treated by the Ld. CIT(A) as belated return and he was of the view that the assessee was hit by Section 80AC Page