“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)

New Balance It Services India Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. Income Tax Officer(1)- Circle 2, Punepune, Pune

ITA 246/PUN/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jun 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 0245 & 0246/Pun/2024 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2020-21 & 2022-23 New Balance It Services India Pvt. Ltd. Level-1, Wing-A, Tower-06, Cybercity, Magarpatta, Pune-411013. Pan : Aaccn5091R . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिधम / V/S. Income Tax Officer-1, Circle-2, Pune . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent द्वधरध / Appearances Assessee By : Mr Rajendra Agiwal [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Mr Ramnath Murkunde [‘Ld. Dr’] सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 28/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 05/06/2024 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; This Twin Appeals Are Instituted U/S 253(1)(Aa) Of The Income Tax Act [‘The Act’] By The Assessee Challenging The Respective First Appellate Orders Dt. 19/12/2023 Passed U/S 250 Of The Act By The Commissioner Of Income Tax Appels [‘Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Years 2020-21 & 2022-23 [‘Ay’] Which In Turn Arisen Out Of Separate Orders Of Intimation Passed U/S 143(1) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Mr Rajendra Agiwal [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Ramnath Murkunde [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 145Section 145(2)Section 250Section 253(1)(aa)Section 28

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PUNE ‘A’ BENCH, PUNE BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI S. S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND

New Balance It Services India Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. Income Tax Officer(1)- Circle 2, Pune

ITA 245/PUN/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jun 2024AY 2021-22

For Appellant: Mr Rajendra Agiwal [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Ramnath Murkunde [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 145Section 145(2)Section 250Section 253(1)(aa)Section 28

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PUNE ‘A’ BENCH, PUNE BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI S. S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND

Jananidhi Souharda Cooperative Limited, Bengaluru vs. ITO Ward 6(2)(5), Bmtc Bldg Koramangala Bengaluru

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

ITA 690/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, JCIT-DR

Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 234ASection 234BSection 250Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL

Sahadev Devji Betkar, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangaluru

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

ITA 270/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Ms. Kinjal Bhuta - AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dinesh A Chourasia – Sr.AR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36Section 43B

days is condoned. The appeal is taken for adjudication. 4. Brief facts of the case is that the assesseefiled the return under section 139(1) of the Act which was processed under section 143(1) of the Act. The addition was made for delayed payment of the PF / ESIC amount

Rahul Chandrakant Jhaveri, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 8(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 4509/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 144Section 153ASection 250

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

Shri Mahudi Madhupuri Jain Nsm Bhojanshala & Prashadi Bhavan, Mahudi vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Exemption, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

ITA 184/AHD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Jun 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Aarsi Prasad, CIT- DRFor Respondent: Date of Hearing

Section 11Section 119(2)(b)Section 12A(1)(b)Section 12A(1)(ba)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250

claim exemption u/s 11 or 12 of the Act, the return of income has to be filed within the time limit as per Section 139(1) of the Act. 7. The provision of Section 12A(1)(ba) of the Act was amended w.e.f. 01.04.2023 and the time allowed ... category of updated return of income, this amendment was brought in to exclude the revised/updated category of returns and specific mention of section 139(1) & 139(4) of the Act was made in Section 12A(1)(ba) of the Act. It is apparent from the Memorandum that time limit

S432 Kudimenahalli Primary Agricultural Co-Operative Credit Society, Deverahalli vs. Asst.Director of Income Tax, Bengaluru

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

ITA 195/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Jun 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 80P(2)(a)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘सी’ "यायपीठ,चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी महावीर "सह, उपा"य

Smt. Rajni Gutpa, Alwar vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Alwar

ITA 45/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT

Section 115BSection 132Section 139Section 153ASection 68

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR डा० एस. सीतालक्ष्मी, न्यायिक

Ayisha Firdose, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 753/BANG/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jun 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmedr Assessment Year : 2021-22 Smt. Ayisha Firdose, Vs. Ito, No.208, 1St Floor, 1St Main Road, Ward – 5(3)(1), Chamrajpet, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 018. Pan : Akxpa 8709 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Siddesh Nagaraj Gaddi, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Matta Padma, Addl. Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 03.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.06.2024

For Appellant: Shri. Siddesh Nagaraj Gaddi, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Matta Padma, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 234BSection 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

contribution that has been remitted before the due date of filing the return of income as per section 43B read with section 139(1) of the Act. 8. The learned AO/CIT(A) erred in charging interest u/s 234B of the Act with reference to the enhanced amount of demand arrived ... contribution to PF / ESI within the due dates specified under the Act i.e., before the due date of filing of the return under section 139(1) of the Act. On the facts of the instant case, we notice that delay is not inordinate. The reasons stated for belated filing

Louis Xavier D'Costa, Goa vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-3(3)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 749/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmedr Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shri. Louis Xavier D’Costa, Vs. Dcit, H. No.86B C/O Inacio D’Costa, Circle – 3(3)(1), Belloi Nuvem, Bengaluru. Salcette – 403 601, Goa. Pan : Akgpd 2147 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Balaji, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Matta Padma, Addl. Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 03.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.06.2024

For Appellant: Shri. Balaji, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Matta Padma, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 91

assessee was not allowed apparently on the premise that Form 67 was filed beyond the due date of filing of the return under section 139(1) of the Act. 5. Aggrieved by the Order of intimation passed under section 143(1) of the Act, denying the claim of FTC, assessee ... support of claim of FTC was filed beyond the due date of filing of return of income under Page 4 of 5 section 139(1) of the Act. The Addl. / JCIT(A) confirmed the intimation on the premise that Form 67 and Rules are applicable from Assessment Year

Hapag-Llyod Aktiengesellschaft, Mumbai vs. DCIT-International Taxation-2(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 4535/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jun 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Niranjan GovindekarFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 44B

under section 234A of the Act is not applicable in the given case since return was filed within the due date Prescribed under section 139(1) of the Act for filing the return of income for the AY 2021-22. Hapag- Llyod Aktiengesellschaft. 4.2 On the facts and circumstances

Satpuda Foundation, Amravati vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Nagpur

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 143/NAG/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur03 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. Moryani a/wFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234A

accountant) could not be furnished by the Appellant, electronically, on or before the due date of filing its ITR as per Section 139(1) of the Act. The Appellant is statedly registered under Section 12A of the Act. In this regard, the relevant observations of the AO as contained ... However, in those cases where the Income Tax Returns have also been filed beyond the due date prescribed under section 139(1) of the Act, the condonation of delay in filing of Form 9A & Form 10 by the Commissioners is not of any help to the assessee, as section

M/S Sms Infrastructure Ltd, Nagpur vs. D.C.I.T. Centralcircle 2(3), Nagpur

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 566/NAG/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur03 Jun 2024AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Shri Saket BhattadFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Marathe

Section 131Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 801ASection 80ASection 80I

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.M. ROY

Deputy Commissioner of Inome Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad vs. Nama Seetaiah, Hyderabad

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 454/HYD/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1523/Hyd/2019 & 393/Hyd/2021 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12) Shri Nama Seetaiah Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Hyderabad Central Circle 3(2) Pan:Aaupn8501F Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.454/Hyd/2021 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dy. C. I. T. Vs. Shri Nama Seetaiah Central Circle 2(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aaupn8501F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 14/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 03/06/2024 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M These Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee, As Well As The Revenue Are Directed Against, The Separate But Identical Orders Of The Learned Cit (A) 12 Hyderabad Even Dated 22.08.2019

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Shakeer Ahmed, DR

Section 132

abinitio. c. The Ld.CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the section referred to in section 143(2) is section 139 and not section 139(1) as observed by him vide para no.6.4 of his order. d. The Ld.CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that a notice u/s.143

Nama Seetaiah, Hyderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 393/HYD/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Shakeer Ahmed, DR

Section 132

Nama Seetaiah, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Hyderabad

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 1523/HYD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Shakeer Ahmed, DR

Section 132

Krishna Kumar Jalan, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir. 28, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 354/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev S. Verma, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Arup Chatterjee, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 43(5)

| आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "यायपीठ, कोलकाता | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE DR. MANISH BORAD, HON’BLE

Napc Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 2(1), Chennai

ITA 598/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.598/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Napc Limited, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 1A, Royal Court, First Floor, Income Tax, No.41, Venkatnarayana Road, Central Circle 2(1) T. Nagar, Chennai Chennai 600 017. [Pan: Aaccn 3625P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. Yeshwanth Kumar, C.A. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. S. Easwar, Irs, Jcit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 20.05.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03.06.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

For Appellant: Shri. Yeshwanth Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. S. Easwar, IRS, JCIT

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Pearl Printers and Publishers (P) Ltd, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 1042/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1042/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Dcit M/S. Pearl Printers & Publishers (P) Ltd. Central Circle-2(4), बनाम/ Vs. Chennai-34. 8/16, Mogappair West, Chennai-600 058. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcp-7244-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 2. Cross Objection No.10/Chny/2024 (In Ita No.1042/Chny/2023) (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2015-16) बनाम/ M/S. Pearl Printers & Publishers (P) Ltd. Dcit 8/16, Mogappair West, Vs. Central Circle-2(4), Chennai-600 058. Chennai-34. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcp-7244-H (अपीलाथ"/Cross Objector) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओरसे/ Revenue By : Shri V.Nandakumar (Cit) –Ld. Dr " थ" की ओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri G. Baskar & Shri I. Dinesh (Advocates)- Ld. Ars सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07-03-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-06-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar & Shri I. DineshFor Respondent: Shri V.Nandakumar (CIT) –Ld. DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 153C

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “बी” "ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय "ी महावीर िसंह

Taruna Maheshwari, Jaipur vs. ITO WD 7(2), Jpr, Jaipur

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

ITA 111/JPR/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Jun 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: The Hearing Of Appeal.”

For Appellant: M/S Suhani Maharwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Chaudhary, Addl.CIT

Section 115Section 115BSection 139Section 143(1)Section 3Section 80C

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh