“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)

Sai Krupa Developers, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Cen. Cir.1(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, this ground of appeal 1 to 4 of the Department is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 248/AHD/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Divya Agrawal & Shri S.V. AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. DR

Section 127Section 132Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 147Section 153CSection 234BSection 44A

purchase of land, development of such land, industrial plotting followed by sale of such land. The assessee filed return of income under Section 139(1) of the Act for the impugned assessment year on 13.10.2014 declaring total income at Rs. NIL after set off of brought forward losses

Rishra St. Thomas Academy, Hooghly vs. A.O. Ward 23(1), Hooghly

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 670/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Girdhar Dhelia, ARFor Respondent: Archana Gupta, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 50Section 69

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT

Tirumurugan Traders, Erode vs. ITO, Ward-1(1). Erode, Erode

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 268/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.267 & 268/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 Thirumurugan Traders, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 11-B, East Kongalamman Koil Street, Ward 1(1), Erode 638 001. Erode. [Pan: Aabft2766P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate, Erode. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.08.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.08.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Both Dated 04.12.2023 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac Delhi For The Assessment Years 2015-16 & 2016-17. 2. Since Both The Appeals Are Filed By Same Assessee & Issues Raised In The Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of The Both The Parties, We Proceed To Hear Both The Appeals Together & Pass Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate, ErodeFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate submits that the assessee filed return of income declaring a total income of ₹.4,41,480/- on 29.09.2015 under section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short]. Thereafter, a survey was conducted on 17.03.2017, in response to which, the assessee filed revised ... return of income on 31.03.2017 declaring same income as admitted in the original return of income filed under section 139(1) of the Act. He drew our attention to para 8 of the assessment order and submits that the finding of the Assessing Officer in treating the revised return

Tirumurugan Traders, Erode vs. ITO, Ward -1(1), Erode

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 267/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate, ErodeFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

Binita Halder, Kolkata vs. PCIT- Central-2, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 844/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 263Section 56(2)(vii)

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

Anchita Properties Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-12(1), Kolkata.

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

ITA 637/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 637/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Anchita Properties Pvt. Limited,………………Appellant 29, Collotola Street, Kolkata-700029 [Pan:Aahca9115E] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………………….……Respondent Ward-12(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 & I.T.A. No. 1067/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Anchita Properties Pvt. Limited,………………Appellant 29, Collotola Street, Kolkata-700029 [Pan:Aahca9115E] -Vs.- Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax,…Respondent Pcit, Kolkata-2, Office Of The Income Tax Officer, Ward-12(1), Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069

Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 263Section 68

issue challenging reopening of the assessment. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed its return of income under section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act on 30th March, 2014 declaring total income of Rs.55,10,070/-. This return was selected for scrutiny assessment

Anchita Properties Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. P.C.I.T., Kolkata - 2, Kolkata

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

ITA 1067/KOL/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Aug 2024AY 2013-2014

Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 263Section 68

Mrs. Jatinder Kaur Bhatia, Khandwa vs. ACIT- (Central) Ujjain, Ujjain

Appeals are dismissed and assessee’s

ITA 227/IND/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 132Section 153ASection 40A(3)Section 69

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

DCIT- (Central)-3, Indore vs. Mrs. Jatinder Kaur Bhatia, Khandwa

Appeals are dismissed and assessee’s

ITA 207/IND/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 132Section 153ASection 40A(3)Section 69

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

DCIT- (Central)-3, Indore vs. Mrs. Jatinder Kaur Bhatia, Khandwa

Appeals are dismissed and assessee’s

ITA 206/IND/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 132Section 153ASection 40A(3)Section 69

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

Mape Advisory Group Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 5.2.1, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2191/MUM/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2024AY 2017-2018

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 154Section 244Section 244ASection 244A(1)Section 244A(2)

2 ITA No.2191/Mum/2024 M/s. Mape Advisory Group Pvt. Ltd (a) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Nagpur vs. Shri Biharilal Shadhuram Chhabriya, Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for the assessment year

ITA 109/NAG/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur21 Aug 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Abhay AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya

Section 131Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 69A

amount of Brokerage/Commission earned has been offered for taxation under the head “Income from Business”. The return of income has been filed under section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") for the assessment year 2013-14 to 2019-20, disclosing commission / brokerage income under the head

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Centrll Circle-2(1), Nagpur vs. Shri Biharilal Shadhuram Chhabriya, Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for the assessment year

ITA 108/NAG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur21 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Abhay AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya

Section 131Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 69A

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Nagpur vs. Shri Biharilal Shadhuram Chhabriya, Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for the assessment year

ITA 107/NAG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur21 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Abhay AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya

Section 131Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 69A

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Nagpur vs. Shri Biharilal Shadhuram Chhabriya, Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for the assessment year

ITA 106/NAG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur21 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Abhay AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya

Section 131Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 69A

M/S Elcon Estate Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-13(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 769/KOL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Aug 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Pradip Kumar Choubey

Section 115BSection 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250

conditions are satisfied: (i) The return of income for AY 2020-21 has been filed on or before the due date specified under section 139(1) of the Act; (ii) The assessee company has opted for taxation u/s 115BAA of the Act in (e) of "Filing Status" in "Part ... filed Not satisfied; the appellant filed the on or before the due date specified under return on 31.03.2022, after the due date section 139(1) of the Act of 15.03.2022(extended date). The assessee company has opted for Satisfied; the appellant has chosen taxation u/s 115BAA

The Pallipalayam Frmers Service Co-Operative Society Limited, Namakkal vs. ITO Circle 1, Erode

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

ITA 964/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.964/Chny/2024 िनधा8रण वष8 /Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Ms. G. Vardhini Karthik, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT

Section 119(2)Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 80ASection 80A(5)Section 80PSection 80P(2)

filed by ne assessee on 30.03.2019 as against the due date of 31.10.2018 as per the provisions of Section 139(1) of the Act. Under such circumstances, respectfully following the above referred m binding decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, Madras as well as [il the decision

Gnanasekaran, Cuddalore vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(1), Chennai

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1808/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1807 & 1808/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years :2015-16 & 2016-17 Shri Gnanasekaran, The Assistant Commissioner 21, Thirowpathi Amman Koil Street , Vs. Of Income Tax, Cuddalore-607 002. Central Circle -1(1) Pan: Acvpg-5138-J Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P.M.Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 234A

filing of return of income in response to notice u/s.153A of the Act. But, whether this constitute a default in term of section 139(1) from the due date for ITA Nos.1807 & 1808Chny/2024 filing of original return of income or proceedings are in response to notice u/s.153A ... that as per the provisions of section 80AC, the assessees ought to have filed returns of income within the due date under section 139(1) and hence the provisions of section 234A(l) is applicable. It is also the case of the Revenue that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals

Gnanasekaran, Cuddalore vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(1), Chennai

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1807/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri P.M.Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 234A

Nandagopal Nandhakumar, Coimbatore vs. ACIT Non Corporate Circle 2, Coimbatore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 172/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.172/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 V. Mr.Nandagopal Nandhakumar, The Acit, Flat No.103, Ncc-2, Smuka Eagles Nest Apartment, Coimbatore. Kpk Nagar, Kalapatti S.O. Vellanaipatty, Coimbatore – 641 048. [Pan: Abmpn 3044 L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 54BSection 54F

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी एबी टी. वक", "ाियक