← 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)

ACIT, Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad vs. Tara Chand Boppana, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 692/HYD/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Jun 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali MohanFor Respondent: Ms. TH Vijaya Lakshmi
Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 50C

brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and has filed his return of income under Section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 28.08.2018 declaring total income of Rs.3,34,430/-. A search and seizure operation under Section ... income on 19.02.2021 declaring total income of Rs.3,34,430/- which was the total income declared in the return of income filed under Section 139(1) of the Act. The assessment has been completed under Section 143(3) read with Section 153A of the Act on 29.09.2021 and determined

ACIT, Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad vs. Sarat Gopal Boppana, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 690/HYD/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Jun 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali MohanFor Respondent: Ms. TH Vijaya Lakshmi
Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 50C

brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and has filed his return of income under Section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 28.08.2018 declaring total income of Rs.3,34,430/-. A search and seizure operation under Section ... income on 19.02.2021 declaring total income of Rs.3,34,430/- which was the total income declared in the return of income filed under Section 139(1) of the Act. The assessment has been completed under Section 143(3) read with Section 153A of the Act on 29.09.2021 and determined

Tara Chand Boppana, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 646/HYD/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Jun 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali MohanFor Respondent: Ms. TH Vijaya Lakshmi
Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 50C

brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and has filed his return of income under Section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 28.08.2018 declaring total income of Rs.3,34,430/-. A search and seizure operation under Section ... income on 19.02.2021 declaring total income of Rs.3,34,430/- which was the total income declared in the return of income filed under Section 139(1) of the Act. The assessment has been completed under Section 143(3) read with Section 153A of the Act on 29.09.2021 and determined

Kavya Boppana, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 642/HYD/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Jun 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali MohanFor Respondent: Ms. TH Vijaya Lakshmi
Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 50C

brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and has filed his return of income under Section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 28.08.2018 declaring total income of Rs.3,34,430/-. A search and seizure operation under Section ... income on 19.02.2021 declaring total income of Rs.3,34,430/- which was the total income declared in the return of income filed under Section 139(1) of the Act. The assessment has been completed under Section 143(3) read with Section 153A of the Act on 29.09.2021 and determined

Sarat Gopal Boppana, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 638/HYD/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Jun 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali MohanFor Respondent: Ms. TH Vijaya Lakshmi
Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 50C

brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and has filed his return of income under Section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 28.08.2018 declaring total income of Rs.3,34,430/-. A search and seizure operation under Section ... income on 19.02.2021 declaring total income of Rs.3,34,430/- which was the total income declared in the return of income filed under Section 139(1) of the Act. The assessment has been completed under Section 143(3) read with Section 153A of the Act on 29.09.2021 and determined

Sarat Gopal Boppana, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 637/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali MohanFor Respondent: Ms. TH Vijaya Lakshmi
Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 50C

brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and has filed his return of income under Section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 28.08.2018 declaring total income of Rs.3,34,430/-. A search and seizure operation under Section ... income on 19.02.2021 declaring total income of Rs.3,34,430/- which was the total income declared in the return of income filed under Section 139(1) of the Act. The assessment has been completed under Section 143(3) read with Section 153A of the Act on 29.09.2021 and determined

K864 Murali Chennampatti Primary Agriculture Co-Op Credit Society, Erode vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Erode

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

ITA 517/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Jun 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 516 & 517/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 M/S. K864 Murali Chennampatti The Income Tax Officer, Primary Agriculture Co-Op Vs. Ward 2(1), Credit Society, Erode. Mulari Post, Anthiyur Taluk, Erode – 638 504. Pan: Aabak 3671M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. A. Vijayalakshmi, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27.06.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27.06.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: These Appeals By The Assessee Are Arising Out Of The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Addl/Jcit(A),Prayagraj In Order No.Itba/Apl/S/250/2023-23/1058743474 (1) & 1058743723(1) Both Dated 14.12.2023. The Return Of Income For The Assessment Years 2018-19 & 2019-20 Were Processed & Intimation U/S.143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) Were Issued By The Asst. Director Of Income Tax, Central Ita Nos.516 &517/Chny/2024 Processing Center (Cpc), Bengaluru Vide Orders Dated 12.07.2019 & 20.09.2020 Respectively.

For Appellant: Ms. A. Vijayalakshmi, FCAFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.CIT
Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 80P

filing of return as per Board Circular is 31.10.2019. Even otherwise there is a delay in filing of return in term of section 139(1) of the Act. Therefore, the CPC, Bengaluru while issuing intimation u/s.139(1) of the Act and processing of return of income disallowed the claim ... income tax return on July 29, 2020, which is beyond the due date of filing the return, i.e., September 30, 2019, as per Section 139(1) of the Act and also beyond the extended deadline of October 31, 2019, allowed for that relevant year. In accordance with the provisions

K864 Murali Chennampatti Primary Agriculture Co-Op Credit Society, Erode vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Erode

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

ITA 516/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 516 & 517/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 M/S. K864 Murali Chennampatti The Income Tax Officer, Primary Agriculture Co-Op Vs. Ward 2(1), Credit Society, Erode. Mulari Post, Anthiyur Taluk, Erode – 638 504. Pan: Aabak 3671M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. A. Vijayalakshmi, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27.06.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27.06.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: These Appeals By The Assessee Are Arising Out Of The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Addl/Jcit(A),Prayagraj In Order No.Itba/Apl/S/250/2023-23/1058743474 (1) & 1058743723(1) Both Dated 14.12.2023. The Return Of Income For The Assessment Years 2018-19 & 2019-20 Were Processed & Intimation U/S.143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) Were Issued By The Asst. Director Of Income Tax, Central Ita Nos.516 &517/Chny/2024 Processing Center (Cpc), Bengaluru Vide Orders Dated 12.07.2019 & 20.09.2020 Respectively.

For Appellant: Ms. A. Vijayalakshmi, FCAFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.CIT
Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 80P

filing of return as per Board Circular is 31.10.2019. Even otherwise there is a delay in filing of return in term of section 139(1) of the Act. Therefore, the CPC, Bengaluru while issuing intimation u/s.139(1) of the Act and processing of return of income disallowed the claim ... income tax return on July 29, 2020, which is beyond the due date of filing the return, i.e., September 30, 2019, as per Section 139(1) of the Act and also beyond the extended deadline of October 31, 2019, allowed for that relevant year. In accordance with the provisions

Marigantum Narasimha Chari, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 276/BANG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jun 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Parithivel .V, JCIT (DR)
Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

appreciating that the employee contribution to provident fund amounting to Rs. 77,17,455 was paid within the due date as per section 139(1) of the Act. Page 9 of 10 2.3. The learned CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi erred in not appreciating that employee contribution to provident fund cannot ... disallowed as it was paid within the due date as per section 139(1) of the Act. 2.4. On facts and circumstances of the case and law applicable, addition of Rs.77,17,455 to business income should be deleted.” 10.16 The above issue is now settled by the decision

M/S. Arham Mitra Mandal, Bangalore vs. Income-Tax Officer(Exemptions)-Ward-1, Bangalore

ITA 1110/BANG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri. Narendra Kumar Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 119Section 119(2)(b)Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "A" BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI WASEEM AHMED

Faisul Ramon Nagel, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, International Tax Ward 3(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, ITA No.1248/Mum/2024 is allowedfor statistical purpose

ITA 1248/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh VoraFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant, Addl. CIT DR
Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 154oSection 244ASection 250Section 90

along with revised return of income under Section 139(5) of the Act and not with the original return of income filed under Section 139(1) of the Act. 3. Should have directed to grant consequential interest under Section 244A of the Act. The appellant craves leave

Manav Malik, Noida vs. ACIT Circle 5(2)(2), Gautam Budh Nagar

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 2293/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2019-20 Manav Malik, Vs Acit, B-146, Sector-19, Circle 5(2)(2), Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh – 201 301. Uttar Pradesh. Pan: Apzpm1646L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms Kirti Bindal, Ca Revenue By : Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.06.2024

For Appellant: Ms Kirti Bindal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154

have specifically provided that the FTC would be disallowed if the assessee does not file Form 67 within the due date prescribed under section 139(1) of the Act. It was submitted that that there are many sections in the Act which specifically deny deduction or exemption or relief

Fortum Sar B.V., Netherlands vs. DCIT, Circle-1(3)(1) Int. Taxation, Delhi

In the result, appeal is allowed as indicated above

ITA 2028/DEL/2023[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2022-23

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 250

despite accepting the fact that the return of income was filed by the Appellant within the due date prescribed under section 139(1) of the Act. 5. The Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in facts and in law in not giving due opportunity of hearing to the Appellant for explaining

Mukesh Khurana, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Noida

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 4710/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271ASection 274

considered and decided in the penalty. Since the assessee has offered the said income in the return of income filed under section 139(1) of the Act, therefore, the question of taking any decision by the AO in the assessment proceedings about the true nature of surrender made

Shri Nandlal Dharamdas Virwani, Akola vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi, Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 7/NAG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Singhai
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271BSection 271DSection 273BSection 44A

Facts in Brief:– For the year under consideration, initially, the assessee has not filed return of income under section 139(1) of the Act, but subsequently filed its return of income under section 148 of the Act declaring total income of ` 2,43,940. However, the assessee furnished / uploaded audit

Sudhagar, Pondicherry vs. ITO, Ward-3, Pondicherry

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

ITA 754/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 754/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 The Income Tax Officer, Sudhagar, V. Ward -3, No.37, Mariamman Koil Pondicherry. Street, Pillaiyarkuppam Bahour Po, Pondicherry – 607 402. [Pan: Cyfps-5732-J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. G. Baskar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18.06.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26.06.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 44ASection 68

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एबी टी वक", "याियक

Star Ceramics, Chitradurga vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Chitradurga

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

ITA 1059/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Ms. Richa Bakiwala, CA
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 252Section 68Section 69

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC-‘C’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2015-16

Sumeet Subhash Narang, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 42(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 818/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 90

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

Supreme Nonwovens Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Mumbai

In the result, appeal in ITA No

ITA 235/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal, Advocate& Ms. NehaFor Respondent: Shri Dinesh A Chourasia – Sr.AR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(3)Section 250

delete any of the grounds of appeal” 3. Brief facts of the case is that the assessee has filed the return under section 139(1) during the impugned assessment year and in computation Suo-motu disallowed amount to Rs.77,38,091/- which is @1% of the investment amount to Rs.77

System A D Solution India Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Circle 11(2)(2), Mumbai

ITA 1337/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri Avinash Baburao Karpe
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

systems for theatres, broadly covered under works contract. For the Assessment Year 2010-11, the Appellant did not file return of income under Section 139(1) of the Act. Subsequently, notice was issued to the Appellant under Section 148 of the Act and proceedings under Section