← 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 Corp Circle 1 (1), Chennai vs. M/S Amtex Info Solutions Pvt Ltd, Chennai

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

ITA 546/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.546/Chny/2018 िनधा;रण वष; /Assessment Year: 2013-14 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income M/S. Amtex Info Solutions Pvt. Tax, Vs. Ltd., Plot No.54, 27Th Street, Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai. Sri Krishna Nagar, Maduravoyal, Chennai – 600 095. [Pan: Aaica 6676K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथH की ओर से/ Assessee By : None JkथH की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri G. Suresh. Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02.07.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.09.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Jagadish, A.M : Aforesaid Appeal Filed By The Revenue For Assessment Year (Ay) 2013-14 Arises Out Of The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-, Chennai [Hereinafter “Cit(A)”] Dated 12.12.2017 In The Matter Of Assessment Framed By The Assessing Officer [A.O] U/S. 143(3) Of The Act On 30.03.2016. :- 2 -:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri G. Suresh. JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)Section 2(24)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘डी’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी यस यस िव"ने

Cosmo Speciality Chemicals Private Limited, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(1), Cr Building, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2766/DEL/2024[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Sept 2024AY 2022-2023

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.2766/िद"ी/2024 (िन.व. 2022-23) Cosmo Specialty Chemicals P. Ltd., 1St Floor, Uppals Plaza, M-6 District Centre, Jasola, Delhi 110025 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aaicc-6706-G बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(1), C.R Building ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Delhi 110002 अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta & Shri Shrey Jain, Advocates "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By : Ms. Shivani Bansal, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 10/09/2024 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 10/09/2024 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4 Chennai (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Cit(A)') Dated 14.05.2024, For Assessment Year 2022-23. 2. The Solitary Issue Raised In Appeal By The Assessee In Denial Of Benefit Of New Tax Regime U/S. 115Bab Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Act').

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, &For Respondent: Ms. Shivani Bansal, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 139(5)

cogent as benefit of Section 115BAB cannot be denied merely on the ground that Form 10ID was not filed within due date of Section 139(1) but was filed on 19.05.2021 with revised return u/s. 139(5) within the permissible time. However, I note that facts submitted in this case

Ruturaj Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., Pune vs. ITO, Ward 5(1), Pune

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

ITA 1418/PUN/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1418/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Ruturaj Cooperative Vs. Ito, Ward-5(1), Pune. Housing Society Ltd., S. No.692/A-2, Ruturaj Society, Satara Road, Pune- 411037. Pan : Aaatr1116L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Deepa Khare Revenue By : Shri Umesh Phade Date Of Hearing : 31.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.09.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27.10.2023 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Ld Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming Addition Of Interest Income On Deposits Of Rs13,23,708/- Of Jain Mandir Which Has Overriding Title In Favour Of Jain Mandir & Thus Does Not Partake The Character Of Income In The Hands Of The Appellant. 2. The Ld Clt(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Not Appreciating That The Issue Is Decided By Cit (Appeal) 4 For Ay 2008-09 & 2010-11 In Favour Of The Appellant.

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Phade
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 251(2)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI G. D. PADMAHSHALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY