← 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)

M/S. Bindhya Bashini Traders, Liluah, Howrah vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 32, Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed and the order of the Ld

ITA 1144/KOL/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Sept 2024AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2018-19 & Assessment Year: 2019-20 M/S Bindhya Bashini Traders, Circle – 32, Kolkata, 268/10, Narayani Complex, Aayakar Bhawan, 110, Vs G.T. Road, Liluah - 711204 Middletown Row, (Pan: Aagfb2388A) Kolkata - 700071 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Miraj D. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Amuldeep Kaur, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAKESH MISHRA

M/S. Bindhya Bashini Traders, Liuah, Howrah vs. DCIT, Circle - 32, Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed and the order of the Ld

ITA 1143/KOL/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Sept 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2018-19 & Assessment Year: 2019-20 M/S Bindhya Bashini Traders, Circle – 32, Kolkata, 268/10, Narayani Complex, Aayakar Bhawan, 110, Vs G.T. Road, Liluah - 711204 Middletown Row, (Pan: Aagfb2388A) Kolkata - 700071 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Miraj D. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Amuldeep Kaur, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAKESH MISHRA

Om Prakash Agrawal HUF, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 5(1), Jaiupr, Jaipur

ITA 967/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Sept 2024AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Sh. Sarwan Kumar Gupta (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234A

ITA No. 967/JPR/2024 Om Prakash Agrawal HUF vs. ITO आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE

Sanjiv Prakashan, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Jaipur

ITA 9/JPR/2023[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Sept 2024AY 2020-2021
For Appellant: Sh. Anil Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Anoop Singh (Addl.CIT)
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, “B” JAIPUR BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM

Turab Ali Bohra, Bhilwara vs. ACIT Central Circle, Ajmer

ITA 704/JPR/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Sept 2024AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya (V.C)For Respondent: Sh. Anoop Singh, Add. CIT
Section 131Section 132ASection 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 234ASection 69A

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

Red Hat India Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT Circle- 15 (3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 215/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanm/S. Red Hat India Pvt. Ltd., A-201, Supreme Business Park, Supreme City, Hiranandani Gardens, Powai, Mumbai – 400 076, Pan No. : Aabcr7091N. ….. Appellant

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Jain, Ms. Nikhila Bhalla and Archita Bhalla Ld. ARsFor Respondent: Shri Yogesh Kamat Ld. CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(10)

facts mentioned by the assessee, it had filed its return of income ROI on 28.11.2015, which is within the statutory timelines as per section 139(1) of the Act. However, an interest of INR 29, 41,649/- has been charged as per the Assessment Order. The Assessee has also challenged

Ebro India Pvt.Ltd., Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-7(1), Delhi

In the result, the ground no 4 raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1291/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Delhi09 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 68

appreciating that employees' contribution had been deposited before the due date of filing return of income as prescribed under section 139(1) of the Act and the same is, therefore, allowable as deduction. 5.2. That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in making the aforesaid disallowance without ... employees’ contribution in a delayed manner. (b) The aforesaid contributions have, however, been deposited mush before the due date of furnishing return under section 139(1) of the Act for the relevant year. 78. The assessing officer, in the draft order, disallowed the aforesaid delayed payment of employee contributions applying

Nagar Palika Nigam Karmchari Kalyan Sakh Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, Ujjain vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 198/IND/2024[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Indore06 Sept 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2019-20 Nagar Palika Nigam Cpc, Bangaluru / Karmchari Kalyan Sakh Cit, Nfac, Delhi Sahakari Sanstha बनाम/ Maryadit, Vs. Ujjain (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aactn7778G Assessee By Ms. Sonam Khandelwal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 03.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 09.09.2024

Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 253(5)Section 80P

perused the material on record. In the instant facts, admittedly the assessee did not file return of income within the time permissible under section 139(1) of the Act. However, the assessee filed its return of income belatedly on 28-11-2020 and claimed deduction of 5,58,494/- under ... issue for consideration before us is that whether once the return of income is filed beyond the prescribed date under section 139(1) of the Act, can the deduction under section 80P of the Act be denied to the assessee, by way of adjustment under section 143(1

Astt. Commisioner of Income Tax, Lucknow vs. M/S Apco Infratech Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow

In the result, appeal of the Revenue and Cross Objection of the assessee are dismissed, as indicated above

ITA 66/LKW/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow05 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G. D. Padamahshali & Shri Subhash Malguriaassessment Year: 2014-15 The Asstt. Commissioner V. M/S Apco Infratech Pvt. Ltd Of Income Tax B-9, Vibhuti Khand Central Circle Ii Gomti Nagar Lucnow Lucknow Pan:Aadca5639H (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.19/Lkw/2017 [In Ita No.66/Lkw/2017] Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Apco Infratech Pvt. Ltd V. The Asstt. Commissioner Of B-9, Vibhuti Khand Income Tax Gomti Nagar Central Circle Ii Lucknow Lucnow Pan:Aadca5639H (Cross Objector) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Kumar Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Neil Jain, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 194Section 80Section 80I

relevant to mention that Assessee had furnished original return vide. Acknowledgement no. 426756641281114 on 28/11/2014 which was in due time as per section 139(1) of the I.T. Act 1961, as assesse had entered in specified domestic transaction so the due date for filing of return was 30th November ... filed on 21.03.2016 with total income of Rs.56,70,62,680/-. In the original return filed on 28.11.2014 (within due date as per section 139(1) of the Act) this deduction was not claimed and returned income of Rs.61,21,73,600/- was shown. The AO did not allow

Mr. Ganesh Ayodhyaprasad Jaiswal, Nanded vs. Assessing Officer, Ward-1, Nanded

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee vide ITA No

ITA 732/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Hari KrishanFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 271FSection 44A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI VINAY

Mr. Ganesh Ayodhyaprasad Jaiswal, Nanded vs. Assessing Officer, Ward-1, Nanded

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee vide ITA No

ITA 731/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Hari KrishanFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 271FSection 44A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI VINAY

Mr. Ganesh Ayodhyaprasad Jaiswal, Nanded vs. Assessing Officer, Ward, Nanded

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee vide ITA No

ITA 729/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Hari KrishanFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 271FSection 44A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI VINAY

District Club, Mahabubnagar vs. ITO Ward-1, Mahbubnagar

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

ITA 780/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.780/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) District Club Vs. Income Tax Officer Mahabubnagar Ward 1 Pan:Aabad2298R Mahabubnagar (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: N O N E राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri S.P.G. Mudaliar, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 05/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 05/09/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: : Shri S.P.G. Mudaliar, DR
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144ASection 69A

ITA No 780 of 2024 District Club आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

Zoyeb Hyderabadwala, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 240/VIZ/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam05 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No. 240/Viz/2024 (धििाधरणिरध/ Assessment Year: 2018-19) Zoyeb Hyderabadwala V. Ito – Ward – 1(2) 27-32-9, Ground Floor Direct Taxes Building, Mvp Double Road 75 Feet Road, Visakhapatnam – 530001 Andhra Pradesh Besides Gayatri College, Mvp Colony Visakhapatnam – 530017 [Pan : Aaapz3387M] Andhra Pradesh (अपीलार्/ Appellant) (प्र्/ Respondent) यरद्त्य्पयतय्यिध/ Assessee Represented By : Shri C. Sanjeev Rao, Ar र्जसय्पयतय्यिध/ Department Represented By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr.Ar सु्व्ईसम्पहो्ेय्यतयि/ Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing : 08.08.2024 घोषण्य्त्र्ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05.09.2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri S Balakrishnan: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi [Hereinafter In Short “Ld.Cit(A)”] Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 271BSection 44A

audited in terms of provisions of section 44AB of the Act and file the audit report as required within the due date under section 139(1) of the Act. However, it was noticed that assessee has filed the audit report on 04.12.2018 which is beyond the extended due date

Padmavati Agrico (India) Pvt Ltd, Ajmer vs. ACIT Circle - 1, Ajmer

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 702/JPR/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Sept 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Mittal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Anoop Singh (Addl. CIT)
Section 143Section 147

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

Smt. Anita Sandhu, Chandigarh vs. ITO-Ward-5(5), Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 750/CHANDI/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Sept 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President)

For Appellant: Shri Nechchal SandhuFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr.DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 90

DISMISSED.” 7. Thus, the ld. CIT(A) has held that filing of Form 67 is mandatory, within the time limit prescribed under Section 139(1) of the Act and that in the absence thereof, the FTC claimed was correctly denied. 8. As against the assessee's grievance that ... just confirmed the denial of the FTC claimed, by holding that Form 67 had not been filed within the time limit specified under Section 139(1) of the ITA 750/CHD/2023 A.Y.2021-22 5 Act. The ld. CIT(A) has also held that filing of Form 67 in the manner prescribed under

Dhananjaya Tradelink Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-1(1)(4), Ahmedabad

In the result, both the appeals filed by the respective assessees are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 898/AHD/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarassessment Year: 2012-13

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

Income Tax Act, 1961 after getting the prior approval of the Authorities for the reasons recorded therein. The original return under Section 139(1) of the Act dated 28.09.2012 was filed by the assessee at a total income of Rs.3,38,990/-. The scrutiny assessment through CASS under Section

Bipinbhai Kantilal Vakta, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, both the appeals filed by the respective assessees are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 837/AHD/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarassessment Year: 2012-13

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

Income Tax Act, 1961 after getting the prior approval of the Authorities for the reasons recorded therein. The original return under Section 139(1) of the Act dated 28.09.2012 was filed by the assessee at a total income of Rs.3,38,990/-. The scrutiny assessment through CASS under Section

Sujatabai Shesherao Bansode, Latur vs. ITO, Ward 4, Latur

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

ITA 950/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.950/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Sujatabai Shesherao Vs. Ito, Ward-4, Latur. Bansode, Bhim Nagar Atp & Tq Ahmedpur, Latur- 413515. Pan : Aplpb6172Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Deepa Khare Revenue By : Shri Umesh Phade Date Of Hearing : 01.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.09.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 05.03.2024 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1] On The Facts & In The Circumstances The Learned Cit(A) Nfac Erred In Law & On Facts In Not Condoning The Delay In Filing Appeal On The Ground That The Reasons For Delay Are Not Found To Be Satisfactory. 2] The Learned Cit(A) Has & On Facts In Not Appreciating That The Reasons For Delay Were Beyond The Control Of The Appellant & Were Genuine For Which The Delay Ought To Have Be Condoned & Appeal Ought To Have Decided On Merits.

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Phade
Section 10(37)Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 144Section 147Section 234ASection 250(6)Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)Section 96

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

The Sirur Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Pune vs. ACIT, Exemtion Circle, Pune

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

ITA 609/PUN/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Sept 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(2)Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY