← 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)

Vinod Banwarilal Saraf, Mumbai vs. PCIT (Central), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2562/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth KothariFor Respondent: Shri Ankush Kapoor, CIT, DR
Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 153ASection 263Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT

Sircar Securites & Allied Services Pvt Ltd, Kolkata vs. ACIT Cricle 23 (2), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Asst Year 2017-18 is 9

ITA 1683/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Deep Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 43B

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI C. N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH

Sircar Securites & Allied Services Pvt Ltd, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle 23(2), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Asst Year 2017-18 is 9

ITA 1682/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Deep Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 43B

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI C. N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH

Karamshibhai Meghjibhai Patel, Anand vs. The ITO, Ward-1(3)(4) (Previously the ITO, Ward-3, Navsari), Petlad

ITA 258/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 144Section 148Section 2(14)(iii)Section 234ASection 249(4)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271FSection 45

offer the capital gain from this transaction and the assessee did not file any return of income for the year under consideration under Section 139(1) of the Act. Consequently, a notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued by the Ld. Assessing Officer on March 28, 2019, which

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Hyderabad vs. Pioneer Builders, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeals of Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 64/HYD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Aug 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiasl.

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate for assessee at Sl.Nos.1 to 3For Respondent: Date of Hearing
Section 127Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “A” , HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI LALIET KUMAR

ACIT., (Exemptions), Circle-1(1), Hyderabad vs. The Yacht Club of Hyderabad, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 571/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Aug 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: CA Aluru V Sai Sudha, ARFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)

exemption under section 11 is not justified without assigning any reasons, that too when the assessee filed the return of income under section 139(1) of the Act for the assessment year 2020-21 on 12/02/2021, namely, before the due date for filing the return of income for the assessment ... audit report is one month prior to the due date for furnishing the return of income for the assessment year 2020-21 under section 139(1) of the Act and though the due date for filing the return of income was extended till 31/05/2021, the due date for filing

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Hyderabad vs. Pioneer Builders, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeals of Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 57/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Aug 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiasl.

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate for assessee at Sl.Nos.1 to 3For Respondent: Date of Hearing
Section 127Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “A” , HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI LALIET KUMAR

Darga Ehazrat Syedshah Khwajadas Chisti Unnayabi Perpetual Trust Vatpalli, Vatpally Sahreef vs. ITO., Exemption Ward-1(3), Hyderabad

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

ITA 567/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Aug 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Vaishnav, ARFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala, DR
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 119(2)Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)

requirement of filing Form 10/10B is merely directory in nature and failure to furnish Form 10/10B before the due date prescribed under section 139(1) of the Act cannot be so fatal as to deny the claim of exemption under section 11(2) of the Act, especially when Form 10/10B

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Hyderabad vs. Pioneer Builders, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeals of Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 56/HYD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Aug 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiasl.

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate for assessee at Sl.Nos.1 to 3For Respondent: Date of Hearing
Section 127Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “A” , HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI LALIET KUMAR

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Hyderabad vs. Dsr Infrastructure Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeals of Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 54/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Aug 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiasl.

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate for assessee at Sl.Nos.1 to 3For Respondent: Date of Hearing
Section 127Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “A” , HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI LALIET KUMAR

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Hyderabad vs. Dsr Infrastructure Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeals of Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 53/HYD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Aug 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiasl.

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate for assessee at Sl.Nos.1 to 3For Respondent: Date of Hearing
Section 127Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “A” , HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI LALIET KUMAR

D S R Infrastructure Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-1(4), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeals of Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 51/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Aug 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiasl.

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate for assessee at Sl.Nos.1 to 3For Respondent: Date of Hearing
Section 127Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “A” , HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI LALIET KUMAR

DCIT., Central Circle-1(4), Hyderabad vs. Dsr Infrastructure Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeals of Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 50/HYD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Aug 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiasl.

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate for assessee at Sl.Nos.1 to 3For Respondent: Date of Hearing
Section 127Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “A” , HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI LALIET KUMAR

D S R Infrastructureprivate Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle- 1(4), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeals of Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 49/HYD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Aug 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiasl.

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate for assessee at Sl.Nos.1 to 3For Respondent: Date of Hearing
Section 127Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “A” , HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI LALIET KUMAR

Atindra Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 1(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as 6

ITA 1141/KOL/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Aug 2024AY 2020-2021

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.1141/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Atindra Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. ………. Appellant (Pan: Aadcr0604F)) Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Kolkata ………… Respondent Appearances By: Divya Mohta, C.S Appeared For Appellant. Shri Nicholash Murmu, Addl. Cit, Dr Appeared For Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 22.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 29.08.2024 Order Per Dr. Manish Borad: This Appeal Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Year (In Short “Ay”) 2020-21 Is Directed Against The Order Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, (Appeals), Addl/Jcit(A)-13, Mumbai [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] Dated 18.03.2024 Arising Out Of The Intimation Framed U/S. 143(1) Of The Act By Acit, Cpc, Bengaluru Dated 19.08.2021. I.T.A. No. 1141/Kol/2024 Atindra Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Ay : 2020-21 2. The Only Grievance Of The Assessee Is That Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Cpc For Not Calculating The Tax On The Income Of The Assessee Under The New Regime U/S. 115Baa Of The Act.

Section 115BSection 119(1)(b)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, KOLKATA डॉ. मनीष बोरड, लेखा सद"य एवं "ी संजय सरमा, "ाियक सद

A 1235 Madurai Taluk Agricultural Producers Co-Operative Marketing Society Limited, Madurai vs. NFAC, Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 656/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.656/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-2019) A 1235 Madurai Taluk Agricultural Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Producers Co-Operative Marketing Non Corporate Ward 1(1) Society Limited, Madurai. 31, Visuvasapuri 3Rd Street, Gnanaolipuram, Madurai 625 016. [Pan: Aaaaa 9671J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, (Erode) Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Arv Srinivasan,Irs, Adl Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 20.06.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.08.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri () This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi In Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1051232891 (1) Dated 24.03.2023. The Assessment Was Framed By The Additional/Joint /Deputy/Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax / Income-Tax Officer, National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 143(3A) & 143(3B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) For The Assessment Year 2018-19 Vide Order Dated 07.04.2021. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, (Erode) AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri ARV Srinivasan,IRS, Adl CIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(2)(e)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ‘ए’’ "ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘ A’ BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय "ी मनोज कुमार

Brij Bihari Agrawal, Jaipur vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle - 1, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 737/JPR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Aug 2024AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal (C.A)
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 153C

array atitcia after, cage =aradis, wage IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,” A” JAIPUR St vaxtircal, =r wees

Patel Engineering Company Charity Trust, Mumbai vs. ITO, Exemption Ward(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 3167/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘SMC’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH

Silverline Cooperative Housing Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-31(2)(1)

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and AO is directed to allow the claim

ITA 2604/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(d)

respectively and thus assessee had filed the return of income within the due date of under section 139(1). Thus even under amended provision no prima facie adjustment have been made no prima facie adjustment on account of Page

Silverline Cooperative Housing Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-31(2)(1)

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and AO is directed to allow the claim

ITA 2603/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(d)

respectively and thus assessee had filed the return of income within the due date of under section 139(1). Thus even under amended provision no prima facie adjustment have been made no prima facie adjustment on account of Page