“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)

Hema Viral Joshi, Gandhinagar vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Gandhinagar

Accordingly, these four appeals of the assessee(s) are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 609/AHD/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Oct 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.609, 610 & 611/Ahd/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Respectively Hema Viral Joshi The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ 9C Sector-19, Ward-2, Gandhinagar V/S. Gandhinagar – 382 019 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Admpj 6455 B & आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.612/Ahd/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-12 Viral Vinodchandra Joshi The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ 9C Sector-19, Ward-2, Gandhinagar V/S. Gandhinagar – 382 019 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Abjpj 6812 H अपीलाथ%/ (Appellant) &' यथ%/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kushal Fofaria, Ar Revenue By : Shri Surendra Kumar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/10/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Kushal Fofaria, ARFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Kumar, Sr.DR

Section 139Section 144Section 147Section 69A

Vinodchandra Joshi 3.2. The assessee did not file his return of income for the assessment year 2011-12 within the prescribed time under section 139(1) of the Act. The assessment was reopened by the Assessing Officer (AO) under section 147 based on information received from the Income Tax Investigation

Sri Rudraprasad Mandal, Medinipur vs. DCIT, Cir. 27(1), Haldia

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 702/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ “सी’’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH: KOLKATA "ी राजपाल यादव

Uti Spectrum Fund, Mauritius vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Bandra Kurla Complex

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 3558/MUM/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Oct 2024AY 2019-2020

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S. & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI BEFORE MS. PADMAVATHY S., ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI. RAJ KUMAR

Ada Atham Darji Pragati Mandal, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Centralized Processing Centre, Bengaluru

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2684/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Oct 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm A.Y.2020-21 Ada Atham Darji Pragati Deputy Director Of Mandal, Income Tax, Cpc, A2 Anand Nagar, Forjett Bengaluru, Street, Vs. Mumbai 400036 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan Aaata 5671P Assessee By Shri Bhupendra Karkhanis Revenue By Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Senior (Dr) 18Th July, 2024 Date Of Hearing 08Th October, 2024 Date Of Pronouncement

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

filed on 30.01.2021 it should have been filed before one month prior to the due date filing of return of income under Section. 139(1) of the Act. The A Y : 2020–21 ADA Atham Darji Pragati Mandal Vs. DDIT, CPC, Bengaluru, due date of filing of return of income

Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemptions Circle Aurangabad, Near Cantonment Area Aurangabad vs. Alhira Education and Welfare Society, Aurangabad, Near Kat-Kat Gate

In the result, the Cross Objection filed by the assessee in C

ITA 494/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Oct 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P. Bora

Section 10Section 11Section 11(7)Section 12Section 12ASection 12A(1)(b)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250

holding that the appellant trust had filed the Income Tax Return (ITR) on 23.10.2019, which was beyond the time limit specified under section 139(1). The due date for filing the ITR for the assessment year 2019-20 was extended to 31.10.2019, and the appellant filed the ITR within this ... holding that the appellant failed to establish proof of having filed the audit report in Form No. 10B before the time limit under section 139(1). The appellant had filed the audit report within the stipulated time, and sufficient evidence was provided. The CIT(A)'s finding contradicts the facts

Ramesh Babu Jasti, Gandipet vs. ITO., Ward-12(6), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 761/HYD/2024[AY 2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Oct 2024

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.760 & 761/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2020-21 & 2021-22) Shri Ramesh Babu Jasti Vs. Income Tax Officer Gandipet Ward – 12(6) Pan:Amepj2611C Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.Abhiroop Bhargav, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Vamsi Krishna, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 07/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 07/10/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri K.Abhiroop Bhargav, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Vamsi Krishna, DR

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

ITA Nos 760 and 761 of 2024 Ramesh Babu Jasti आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME

Ramesh Babu Jasti, Gandipet vs. ITO., Ward-12(6), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 760/HYD/2024[AY 2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Oct 2024

For Appellant: Shri K.Abhiroop Bhargav, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Vamsi Krishna, DR

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

ITA Nos 760 and 761 of 2024 Ramesh Babu Jasti आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Hyderabad vs. Sew Infrastructure Limited, Hyderabad

ITA 1717/HYD/2017[2009-10]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad07 Oct 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang, Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri K.K. ChaitanyaFor Respondent: Smt. Mamata Choudhary

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153ASection 80I

counsel for the Revenue further submitted that the respondent assessee did not claim any deduction under Section 80IA in its return filed under Section 139(1) of the Act but sought to raise such claim for the first time in the return filed in response to the notice under Section ... disallowed the claim of deduction, inter-alia, on the ground that a claim not made in the original return filed under Section 139(1) and sought to be made for the first time in a return filed pursuant to a notice under Section 153A of the Act would

Sharda Kanoria, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-30, Kolkata.

In the result, appeal of the assessee isallowed

ITA 797/KOL/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Oct 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Manish Borad, Accountant Member Shri Sonjoy Sarma (Judicial Member)

Section 139(1)Section 142(3)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C”BENCH KOLKATA Shri Manish Borad, Accountant Member Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member I.T.A

Income Tax Officer, Indore vs. Rajendra Singh Yadav, Indore

Appeal is dismissed being devoid of merit

ITA 152/IND/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore07 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2015-16 Ito-1(2), Rajendra Singh Yadav, Indore 112/12, Nanda Nagar, बनाम/ Opp. Anoop Talkies, Vs. Indore (Revenue / Appellant) (Assessee / Respondent) Pan: Amkpy2261P Assessee By Shri Venus Rawka, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 07.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 07.10.2024

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 54BSection 54F

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, इंदौर "ायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO

M/S Tamilnadu State Marketing Corporation Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Corporate Circle-3(1), Chennai

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

ITA 431/CHNY/2023[F.Y.2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Oct 2024

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate

Section 143(3)Section 69

array atresia, a" Hae, deat IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI stage fae, sorewer va st Aalst

Jyoti Prakash Deshmukh, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(2), Kalyan

In the result ground no. 5

ITA 3295/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Gagan Goyal, Accountantjyoti Prakash Deshmukh F003, Shiv Shanti Complex, Manjarli, Badlapur West, Maharashtra – 421 301, Pan No.: Agspd2705K. ...... Appellant Vs. Ito, Ward 2(2), Kalyan Mohini Plaza Building, Wayle Nagar, Khadkpada, Kalyan, Maharashtra – 421 301 ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh Rokhriyal, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Ld. DR

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 250Section 251

valid certificate of practice under sub-section (1) of section 6 of the said Act. 6. In view of the provisions of section 139(1), Fifth Proviso and section 142(1) of the Act, the assessee was liable to file the return of income and the assessee’s arguments

Vivek Gangadhar Mehendale, Santacruz, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 22(3)(1), Piramal Chambers, Mumbai

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

ITA 2644/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Miss Padmavathy S.

For Appellant: ShriAnil SatheFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, SRDR

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 54Section 54FSection 64(1)

During filing of the return, the assessee declared the capital gain by transfer of property in his own return of income filed under section 139(1) of the Act and claimed exemption under section 54F of the Act for purchasing the new flats by exploiting the sale consideration. The notice ... stated that the assessee’s wife is dependent, and the spouse’s income is declared in the husband’s return filed under section 139(1) of the Act. The 7 Vivek Gangadhar Mehendale assessee is the beneficial owner of the property. It is declared that the entire investment was made

The Chaplah Co-Operative Agricultural Service Society Ltd, Vpo Chouli vs. Ld. DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 47/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: The Tribunal Against The Order Dt 25.04.2023 Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi.

For Appellant: Shri T C Verma, Advocate and Shri Aditya Sood, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjeet Kaur, Sr.DR

Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 249Section 250Section 253Section 3Section 5Section 80P

claiming deduction u/s 80P of the Act, the return of income was required to be filed before the due date, as prescribed by section 139(1) and in the present case, the return was filed belatedly. However, it was only by the amendment to section 143(1) (a)(v) brought

Vasant Hirachand Rathod, Kolhapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward1(4), Kolhapur

The appeal is PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES

ITA 1385/PUN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Smt Astha Chandra & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliassessment Year : 2017-18 Vasant Hirachand Rathod 461, B-Ward, Bhawani Chambers, Bhawani Mandap, Juna Rajwada, Kolhapur-416002. Pan: Aeupr6755D. . . . . . . . Appellant

For Appellant: Mr Pramod Shingate [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Arvind Desai [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253(1)Section 44ASection 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘B’ BENCH PUNE BEFORE HON’BLE SMT ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER And SHRI G

Rosemerry Vinimay Pvt Ltd, Raipur vs. ITO, Ward 11(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 36/KOL/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Oct 2024AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 36/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Rosemerryvinimay Pvt. Ltd. Ito, Wad 11(1), Flat No. 303, 3Rd Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, P-7, Vs Jeevan Apartments, Chowringhee Square, Rajiv Nagar, Kolkata-700069 Chattisgarh-492001 Pan No. Aadcr2184A अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "त् यथ"/ (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Mitra, CIT DR

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 68

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "ायपीठ, कोलकाता । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Sh. Bhupendra Meena, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Jaipur

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

ITA 905/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh (Addl.CIT) a

Section 139(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 44ASection 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh

Federation of Rajasthan Trade and Industry, Jaipur vs. ITO-Exemption Ward-2, Jaipur

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

ITA 217/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Pandya (Adv.) &For Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh (Addl.CIT) a

Section 127Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh

Rajkumar Asnani, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 2(2), Jaipur

ITA 690/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)(V.C.)

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 272A(1)(d)Section 274

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR डा० एस. सीतालक्ष्मी, न्यायिक

Sandeep Jain, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 178/JPR/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Oct 2024AY 2017-2018

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

For Appellant: Shri Amit Mudra (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Anup Singh (Addl. CIT)

Section 139(5)Section 143(2)Section 90

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh