← 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)

Indian Public School Pvt. Ltd., Coimbatore vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1521/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1521/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Indian Public School Private Limited, Vs. The Dcit/Income Tax Officer, 70, Dr. Alagappa Chettiar Road, Corporate Circle 1, Tatabad, Coimbatore 641 012. Coimbatore. [Pan: Aabci6331A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : None ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Aroon Prasad, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 22.07.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 05.03.2024 Passed By The Addl/Jcit(A)-2, Surat For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 16 Days. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. However, The Assessee Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay As Well As Duly Notarized Affidavit Stating Reasons For The Said Delay & Prayed For Condonation Of That Delay. On Perusal Of The Affidavit & Upon Hearing The Ld. Dr, We Find That The 2

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Aroon Prasad, Addl. CIT
Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(va)

note that the assessee remitted employees’ PF and ESI contribution within the due date of filing of return of income under section 139(1) of the Act. The CPC disallowed the said amount for not depositing the same within due date as prescribed under relevant Act. The Addl./ JCIT ... taxmann.com 178 (SC), the contribution, though deposited within the due date of filing of return of income under section 139(1) of the Act, it is the income of the assessee for not depositing the same within the due date of relevant 3 I.T.A. No.1521/Chny/24 statute. Therefore, we find