← 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)

Shreyas Paradkar, Mira Road vs. ITO 1(1) Thane, Thane

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 4721/MUM/2025[2023-2024]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2026AY 2023-2024

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2023-24 Shreyas Paradkar (Individual), Ito Range 1(1), C/O Ca Rahul Godbole & Ashar I.T. Park, 6Th Floor, Vs. Associates, 204, Spectra, Kothrud, Road No. 162, Wagle Indl. Pune – 411038. Estate, Pan- Cvzpp8788C Thane – 400604. (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shir H.V. Datar, (Virtually Present) Revenue By : Shri Vinod Kumar V., Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 20.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.01.2026 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 09.06.2025, Impugned Herein, Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2023-24. 2. In The Instant Case, The Assessee Has Claimed That He Opted For The New Tax Regime While Filing His Return Of Income On 25Th July 2023 By Entering All The Data On The Income-Tax Website. On Selecting The New Tax Regime, The Income-Tax Website Showed Tax Payable At ₹5,000 After Giving Credit For Tds & Therefore, The Assessee Paid The Respective Tax Payable & Submitted The Itr. The Assessee, On The Last Page Of The Itr, Computed The Tax As Per The New Regime, But Somehow, On The First Page Of The Return Of Income Filed, It Is Shown That The Assessee Did Not Opt For The New Tax Regime. This Was A Glitch On The Website, But Somehow, The Return Filed By The Assessee Was Processed Vide Intimation Dated 29.12.2023, Whereby The Taxable Income And/Or Return Filed By The Assessee Was Computed As Per The Old Regime & Not As Per The New Tax Regime Mainly For The Reason That The Assessee Failed To File The Relevant 2 Shreyas Paradkar (Individual)

For Appellant: Shir H.V. Datar, (Virtually Present)For Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar V., SR. D.R
Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250

option concerning of a previous year to be taxed under the Section 115BAC along with his/her return of income to be furnished under Section 139(1) of the Income-tax Act for each year. The concessional rate provided under Section 115BAC is subject to the condition that the total income