← 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)

Divesh Kumar, Bareilly vs. ACIT Central, Bareilly

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 389/LKW/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Nov 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2019-20 Divesh Kumar Shri Kharak Singh V. Rawat, 19, Shishgarh, Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh-243105. Dc/Acit-Cent, Bareilly Office Of The Acit, Central Circle Dc/Acit Cent Bareilly-1-243001 Pan:Cfdpk1712F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None (Adj Application Filed) Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 19 11 2024

For Appellant: None (Adj application filed)For Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl
Section 127Section 132ASection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “SMC”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2019

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle, Patiala vs. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Patiala

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 659/CHANDI/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Saldi, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

held that given that all payments towards employee share of NPS contribution were duly made before filing of return of income as per section 139(1) of the Act, the adjustment made by CPC was not justified and amount in question was held as allowable under

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle, Patiala vs. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Patiala

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 645/CHANDI/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Saldi, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

held that given that all payments towards employee share of NPS contribution were duly made before filing of return of income as per section 139(1) of the Act, the adjustment made by CPC was not justified and amount in question was held as allowable under

Madhu Devi Jajodia, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 36(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1912/KOL/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Nov 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No. 1912/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-2016 Madhu Devi Jajodia,………………………………Appellant Room No. 406, Swaika Center, 4A, Pollock Street, Kolkata-700001 [Pan:Acupj1236H] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………………………Respondent Ward-36(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri Sunil Surana, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Pradip Biswas, Addl. Cit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 30, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 28, 2024 O R D E R

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148

ITA No. 1912/KOL/2024 (A.Y. 2015-2016) Madhu Devi Jajodia THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘B’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before Shri Rajesh

M/S. Shree Prakash Tracon Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 5(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1873/KOL/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Nov 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm M/S Shree Prakash Tracon Pvt. Income Tax Officer, Ltd. Ward 591), Kokata P-7, Room No. 301/A/1, Avani Chowringhee Square, Aaykar Vs. Signature, 91/A/1, Park Street, Bhavan,Kolkata-700069 Kolkata-700016 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aakcs7629A Assessee By : Shri Sunil Surana, Ar Revenue By : Shri Pradip Biswas, Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.11.2024

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, ARFor Respondent: Shri Pradip Biswas, DR
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 148ASection 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JM M/s

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Cuddalore vs. Cholaji Kanniyalal, Kamaraj Street, Villupuram

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and cross objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1674/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 1674/Chny/2024 & Co No.: 51/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Assistant Commissioner Of Cholaji Kanniyalal, Income Tax, V. No. 191, Kamaraj Street, Circle -1, Villupuram, Cuddalore – 607 002. Tamil Nadu – 605 602. [Pan: Aaepk-4555-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (Respondent/Cross Objector) Assessee By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit Department By : Ms. Nidhi D. Jain, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02.09.2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.11.2024

For Appellant: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCITFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi D. Jain, CA
Section 139(1)Section 44ASection 68

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एस एस िव"ने

Kalidoss Natarajan, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(3)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1976/BANG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Balaji V, C.AFor Respondent: Shri V Parithivel, JCIT (DR)
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)

delay in filling Form 67 i.e., it was filed after the due date for filling original return of income prescribed under section 139(1) of the income tax Act. The said issue under consideration is no longer res integra. We note that on identical issue, the Co- ordinate Bench ... have specifically provided that the FTC would be disallowed if the assessee does not file Form 67 within the due date prescribed under section 139(1) of the Act. It was submitted that that there are many sections in the Act which specifically deny deduction or exemption or relief

Paramhans Swami Vivek Bharti Mission, West Delhi vs. ITO, Faridabad

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

ITA 467/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.467/िद"ी/2024 (िन.व. 2017-18) Paramhans Swami Vivek Bharti Mission, Bb-17D, Janakpuri, B-1, West Delhi 110058 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aaatp-8829-N

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Shivani Bansal , Sr. DR
Section 11(1)(a)Section 119Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण िद"ी पीठ “एसएमसी”, िद"ी "ी िवकास अव"थी, "ाियक सद" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH

Isha Properties Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. PCIT (Central), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2452/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘C’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT, AND SHRI NAVEEN

DCIT, Circle-4(2), Delhi vs. Boeing India Private Limited, Delhi

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1838/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Sudhir Pareeka.Yr. : 2019-20 Dcit, Circle 4(2), Boeing India Private Limited, Room No. 384, 3Rd Floor, 3Rd Floor, Dlf Centre, Vs. C.R. Building, Sansad Marg, New Delhi – 2 New Delhi – 1 (Pan:- Aahcb1218P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. Kshitij Bansal, Ca Respondent By : Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr. Date Of Hearing : 25.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.11.2024 Order

For Appellant: Sh. Kshitij Bansal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40A(7)

deposited after the due date prescribed under the PF Act but before the due date of filing the ROI under section 139(1) of the Act; and ii) Provision for payment of Gratuity amounting to Rs. 1,99,47,067/- under section 40A(7) of the Act; 3. Against

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1 Noida, Noida vs. Sanjay Singh, Noida

In the result, both appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and C

ITA 2276/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 132(4)Section 269SSection 69A

considered and decided in the penalty Since the assessee has offered the said income in the return of income filed under section 139(1) of the Act, therefore, the question of taking any decision by the AO in the assessment proceedings about the true nature of surrender made

DCIT Central Circle-I, Greater Noida vs. Sanjay Singh, Noida

In the result, both appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and C

ITA 6942/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 132(4)Section 269SSection 69A

considered and decided in the penalty Since the assessee has offered the said income in the return of income filed under section 139(1) of the Act, therefore, the question of taking any decision by the AO in the assessment proceedings about the true nature of surrender made

Schaeffler India Limited, Vadodara, Gujarat vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore (Jao-Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle1(1)(1), Vadodara, Gujarat

ITA 692/AHD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Nov 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Bhavin Marfatia, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT D.R. & Smt
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 234Section 271(1)(c)Section 37

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER

The ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara vs. Schaeffler India Ltd.( Erstwhile Luk India Pvt. Ltd)), Vadodara

ITA 299/AHD/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Bhavin Marfatia, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT D.R. & Smt
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 234Section 271(1)(c)Section 37

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Schaeffler India Ltd.(A Successor of Luk India Pvt. Ltd)), Vadodara vs. The ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1) (Earlier ACIT, Circle-1, Hosur), Vadodara

ITA 275/AHD/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Bhavin Marfatia, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT D.R. & Smt
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 234Section 271(1)(c)Section 37

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Asstt.Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5, Nagpur vs. The Nirmal Ujwal Credit Co-Op Society Ltd, Nagpur

In the result, appeal for the A

ITA 391/NAG/2019[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Nagpur27 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Vikash Agrawal
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 80PSection 80P(2)

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

Asstt.Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5, Nagpur vs. The Nirmal Ujwal Credit Co-Op Society Ltd, Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for the assessment year

ITA 390/NAG/2019[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Nagpur27 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Vikash Agrawal
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 80PSection 80P(2)

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

Narayandas Kishandas L/R Sunil Narang, Secunderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 654/HYD/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Nov 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. (Accountant Member), Shri K. Narasimha Chary (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao, ARFor Respondent: : Shri Srinath Sadanala, DR
Section 115BSection 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 2Section 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘A’ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri Manjunatha G., Accountant

S109 Poonimangadu Primary Agriculture Cooperative Credit Society, Tiruvallur vs. Itd, Ward 1, Tiruvallur

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

ITA 2437/CHNY/2024[20185-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Nov 2024

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2437/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 S 109 Poonimangadu Primary Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Agriculture Cooperative Credit Society, Ward 1, Poonimangadu Village & Post, Tiruvallur. Tiruthani Taluk, Tiruvallur 631 212. [Pan: Aagas9416B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri B. Suresh, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 21.11.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27.11.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 09.08.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-19 Challenging Exparte Order Of The Ld. Cit(A).

For Appellant: Shri B. Suresh, CAFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 80P

reason that no return of income was filed by the assessee within the due date as prescribed under section 139(1) of the Act. On perusal of the impugned order, we find that no opportunity for filing of submissions along with necessary documents in support of grounds raised

K. Selvaraj, Krishnagiri vs. ACIT Cricle 1 Hosur, Hosur

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

ITA 2434/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2434/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 K. Selvaraj, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 147/28B, Ganthi Nagar, Income Tax, Kirshnagiri 635 001. Circle 1, [Pan: Aanps0770Q] Hosur. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, Fca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 21.11.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27.11.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 18.03.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Challenging Exparte Order Of The Ld. Cit(A).

For Appellant: Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, FCAFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

Assessing Officer brought to tax the entire salary income on the ground that the assessee has not filed his return of income under section 139(1) of the Act. However, the ld. AR has contended that the assessee filed his return of income before completing the assessment. Admittedly, as rightly