← 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)

Uflex Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 1730/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.S Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 37Section 43B

opportunity for furnishing a revised return is available only under section 139(5) of Income Tax Act if the return is filed under section 139(1) of Income Tax Act. The proceedings under section 153A is comparable to the provision of section 147/148 of Income Tax Act. The assessee

Uflex Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 1729/DEL/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G.S Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 37Section 43B

opportunity for furnishing a revised return is available only under section 139(5) of Income Tax Act if the return is filed under section 139(1) of Income Tax Act. The proceedings under section 153A is comparable to the provision of section 147/148 of Income Tax Act. The assessee

Uflex Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 1728/DEL/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri G.S Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 37Section 43B

opportunity for furnishing a revised return is available only under section 139(5) of Income Tax Act if the return is filed under section 139(1) of Income Tax Act. The proceedings under section 153A is comparable to the provision of section 147/148 of Income Tax Act. The assessee

Uflex Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 1727/DEL/2017[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri G.S Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 37Section 43B

opportunity for furnishing a revised return is available only under section 139(5) of Income Tax Act if the return is filed under section 139(1) of Income Tax Act. The proceedings under section 153A is comparable to the provision of section 147/148 of Income Tax Act. The assessee

Touchalife Foundation India, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemptions, Ward 1(3), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 617/HYD/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Jul 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / Ita No. 617/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) Touchalife Foundation India Vs. Ito, Exemptions, Hyderabad Ward 1 (3), [Pan No. Aagct 7121A) Hyderabad. अपीलाथ" / Appellant "" यथ" / Respondent िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate Srinarayan Toshniwal राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Shri Aravindakshan, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 10/07/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement On: 25/07/2024

For Appellant: Advocate Srinarayan ToshniwalFor Respondent: Shri Aravindakshan, DR
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 119Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 8

assessee’s claim of exemption under section 11/12 of the Act in the absence of audit report filed after due date prescribed under section 139(1) of the Act, and accordingly dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 3. Hence the assessee filed this appeal contending that the requirement of filing ... Form 10B is merely directory in nature and failure to furnish the same before the due date prescribed in section 139(1) of the Act cannot be so fatal as to deny the claim of exemption under section 11 of the Act, especially when such Form was available on record

The Mundlapadu Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society Limited, Mundlapadu Village vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 250/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.250/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) The Mundlapadu Primary Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Agricultural Cooperative Credit Ward-1(3), Society Limited, Mundlapadu Vijayawada. Village & Post, Penuganchiprolu Mandal, Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh – 521190. Pan: Aacat7977J (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Smt. A. Aruna, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 15/07/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 25/07/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Smt. A. Aruna, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 80A(5)Section 80P

contra, the Ld. DR submitted that the assessee has not filed a valid return of income in accordance with the provisions of section 139(1) or 139(4) of the Act in order to claim deduction u/s. 80P of the Act. The Ld. DR further submitted that as per section

Ummannoor Rural Co-Op Society, Kollam vs. The ITO Ward 4, Kollam

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the stay application is dismissed

ITA 299/COCH/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K

For Respondent: Sri.Ilaiyaraja K.S., Senior DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 80Section 80HSection 80P

1). The Intimation send on 31.05.2019, the CPC has mentioned the due date for filing ITR was 15.09.2018, which was wrong. As per section 139(1), "In a case where the accounts of the assessee are required under this Act or any other law to be audited or where

Bhadra Sahakari Sakkare Kharkhane Niyamitha, Doddabathi, Davangere vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Davangere.

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

ITA 971/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Smt. Pratibha, R., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 139(1)Section 43B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PRAKASH CHAND

Syeda Mariam, Bangalore vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-3(1)(4), Bengaluru

In the result we accepted the legal issue and held that the assessment order dated 30

ITA 341/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Syeda Mariam The Income Tax Officer No. 482, 14Th Main Ward - 3(1)(4) Koramangala 3Rd Block Vs. Bmtc Building, 80Ft. Road Bangalore 560034 6Th Block, Koramangala Pan – Aazpm2737P Bengaluru 560095 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Zain Ahmed Khan, Ca Revenue By: Shri V. Parithivel, Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.07.2024 O R D E R Per: Soundararajan K.,J.M. This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Challenges The Order Of The Cit(A)-11, Bengaluru Dated 28.12.2023 In Respect Of The Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Her Return Of Income On 28.07.2014. Thereafter A Survey U/S. 133A Was Conducted At The Company M/S. Intact Developers P. Ltd., In Which The Assessee Is A Director & Based On The Survey It Was Found That The Assessee Had Lent Unsecured Loans To The Company & In Support Of The Unsecured Loans The Assessee Filed Confirmation Letters From The Company. Insofar As The Source For The Loan, The Assessee Submitted That She Got Capital Gain In Ays 2013-14 & 2014-15 & Out Of This She Offered Loans To The Company. The Ld. Assessing Officer (Ao) Verified The Details Filed By The Assessee & Came To The Conclusion That There

For Appellant: Shri Zain Ahmed Khan, CAFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, JCIT-DR
Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148Section 54Section 548Section 54B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE “C” BENCH, BANGALORE Before Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member and Shri Soundararajan K

Sankarlingam Sankar Through His Legal Heir Ganesh Shankar, Mumbai vs. NFAC, Delhi, Mumbai

In the result, both appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 708/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Aadesh Kumar AgrariFor Respondent: Shri Ankush Kapoor, CIT DR
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 271FSection 273BSection 274

Meanwhile, since the assessee did not file his return of income for the year under consideration as per the provisions of section 139(1) of the Act, penalty proceedings u/s 271F of the Act were initiated and show cause notice u/s 274 read with section 271F ... relevant financial year 2011-12, and much before the due date of filing the return of income as per the provisions of section 139(1) of the Act, as well as also much before the issuance of notice on 14/10/2019 u/s 142(1) of the Act. It is also evident

Sankarlingam Sankar Through His Legal Heir Ganesh Shankar, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 17(1), Mumbai

In the result, both appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 706/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Aadesh Kumar AgrariFor Respondent: Shri Ankush Kapoor, CIT DR
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 271FSection 273BSection 274

Meanwhile, since the assessee did not file his return of income for the year under consideration as per the provisions of section 139(1) of the Act, penalty proceedings u/s 271F of the Act were initiated and show cause notice u/s 274 read with section 271F ... relevant financial year 2011-12, and much before the due date of filing the return of income as per the provisions of section 139(1) of the Act, as well as also much before the issuance of notice on 14/10/2019 u/s 142(1) of the Act. It is also evident

Modern Flats Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO 2(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 688/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

For Appellant: A. "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 194ASection 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RATNESH NANDAN

Rita Hemchand Gandhi, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Office Int Tax Ward 2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 4840/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 195Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘D’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL

ACIT-2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Kundan Jewellers, Mumbai

In the result, additional ground raised by the assessee is allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4493/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Us Challenging The Validity Of Reopening U/S.147 On The Following Grounds:- “1.On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Nfac Has Erred In Not Adjudicating The Ground Of The Assessee Challenging The Validity Of Reassessment, Which Is Time-Barred Considering The Provisions Of The Act. The Assessee Respectfully Submits That The Reassessment Made Is Time Barred & Therefore The Same Deserves To Be Quashed. 2 On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Cit (A) Has Erred In Not Adjudicating The Additional Ground Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee During The Course Of The Appeal Proceedings. The Assessee Respectfully Submits That The Issue Of Statutory Notices /S. 148 Of The Act By The Jurisdictional Assessing Officer Is In Violation Of The Provisions Of Section 151A Of The Act & The Notifications Issued Thereunder. Accordingly The Reassessment In Pursuance Of Such Notices Is Invalid & Deserves To Be Quashed.”

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 151ASection 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘E‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Tapti Exports, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-19(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 4456/MUM/2023[202-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2024

Bench: Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Tapti Exports Dy. Cit-19(3) Aw 5030 Tower A-Block G, Mumbai – 400 020 Bandra Kurla Coomplex, Bandra (E), Vs. Mumbai-400 051

For Appellant: Shri. Kirit S. Sanghvi, CAFor Respondent: Shri. P.D. Chougule
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 2Section 250Section 44ASection 80I

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM Tapti

Khimji Ramdas India Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-2(1)(2) Present Juridiction the DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 500/AHD/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं / Ita No.500/Ahd/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 बनाम बनाम बनाम बनाम Khimji Ramdas India Pvt. Ltd., The Ito, Ward-2(1)(2), 2Nd Floor, City Square Godrej Ahmedabad, Vs. Garden City, Jagatpur, Present Jurisdiction Ahmedabad-382470 The Dcit, Pan : Aadck 6056 C Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Aatish Shah, Ar & Shri Anil N. Shah, Ar ""थ" की ओर से / Revenue By: Shri Hishikes Hemant Patki, Sr Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 22/07/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24/07/2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short Referred To As “Ld. Cit(A)”] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short Referred To As “The Act”] Dated 12.05.2023 Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15. 2. Grounds Raised Are As Under:- “1. The Ld. Ao Wd. 2(1)(2) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Passing The Impugned Order Which Is Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed & The Ld. Cit(Appeals) Have Similarly Cit(A) Have Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Impugned Order Vide His Order Passed Us.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 In Appeal Vide His Order Dtd.12-05-2023 Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1052777862(1) Dtd. 12/05/2023. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts Without Considering/Adjudicating

For Appellant: Shri Aatish Shah, AR &For Respondent: Shri Hishikes Hemant Patki, Sr DR
Section 154Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ ‘SMC’ अहमदाबाद

Hpc Employees Cooperative Society Ltd, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(5), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 144/VIZ/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam24 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.144/Viz/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2018-19) Hpc Employees Cooperative Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Society Limited, Ward-2(5), Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aaah5103. (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थीकीओरसे/ Assessee By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar प्रत्यधर्थीकीओरसे/ Revenue By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80ASection 80PSection 80P(2)

also reiterated that section 139(4) of the Act is not an independent provision and cannot be construed as having separate existence from section 139(1) of the Act. He therefore pleaded that on the Principle of Mutuality, the assessee should be exempted from payment of taxes

The Electro Urban Urbay Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangluru

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

ITA 701/KOL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Jul 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 80ASection 80PSection 80P(1)Section 8o

hereby further extended to 15th March, 2022; which is within the due date of filing the return, i.e., 31st October 2021, as per Section 139(1), and also beyond the extended deadline of 15th March, 2022, allowed for that relevant year. In accordance with the provisions of Section 80AC

Durgamondap Samabay Krishi Unnayn Samati Ltd., ITO, Ward No-49(1), Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward No- 49(1), Kolkata.

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

ITA 1153/KOL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Pradip Kumar Choubey & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 80Section 80ASection 80P

consideration section 80P of the Act was not specifically mentioned for any mandate regarding filing of returns within the due date as per Section 139(1) of the Act. He also relied on the following cases to canvas the point that the amendment to Section 143(1 ... beyond the Page 3 of 6 I.T.A. No.: 1153/KOL/2023 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Durgamondap Samabay Krishi Unnayn Samiti Ltd. due date as per Section 139(1) of the Act would be denied any relief u/s 80P of the Act. 3. We have considered the rival submissions and also gone through

Vindas Chemical Industries Private Limited, Indore vs. DCIT ACIT 4(1), Indore

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 157/IND/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2018-19 Vindas Chemical Industries Dcit-Acit 4(1), Private Limited, Indore बनाम 102, Prabhudeep Apartment, / Indapuri Colony, Vs. Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan:Aabcv1288P Assessee By Shri N.D. Patwa, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 22.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 24.07.2024

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

employers contribution to PF and ESI of Rs. 47,056/- &Rs.1,55,577/- respectively paid late, but before the prescribed limit under section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. The appellant prays for the relief. 5. Without prejudice to the above, the disallowance sustained