“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)

Shri Chandraprabhu Maharaj Digamber Jain Mandir Trust, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemptions) Ward 1(1), Pune

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

ITA 672/PUN/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Sharad ShahFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav K Singh

Section 11Section 115Section 12ASection 139Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69

being accumulated. The information is to be furnished in Form 10 at least two months prior to the due date specified under section 139(1) for furnishing the return of income for the previous year. 5.3.2 In the instant case, the appellant neither filed the ROI nor Form 10 before

Suresh Trambak Dusane, Nashik vs. ITO Ward 2(1), Nashik

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1431/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1429 To 1431/Pun/2023 "नधा"रण वष" Assessment Years : 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19

For Respondent: Shri RY. Balawade

Section 139(1)Section 148Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND Ms. ASTHA

Suresh Trambak Dusane, Nashik vs. ITO Ward 2(1), Nashik

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1430/PUN/2023[17-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 May 2024

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1429 To 1431/Pun/2023 "नधा"रण वष" Assessment Years : 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19

For Respondent: Shri RY. Balawade

Section 139(1)Section 148Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND Ms. ASTHA

Suresh Trambak Dusane, Nashik vs. ITO Ward 2(1), Nashik

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1429/PUN/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1429 To 1431/Pun/2023 "नधा"रण वष" Assessment Years : 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19

For Respondent: Shri RY. Balawade

Section 139(1)Section 148Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND Ms. ASTHA

Subramanian Shyamsunder, Chennai vs. ACIT- Non Corp Circle 17(1), Chennai

In the result the appeal is allowed

ITA 639/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.639/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2018-19. Subramanian Shyamsunder Acit, No.31, Flat No. B20, R.R. Flats, Vs. Non Corp Circle 17(1) 2Nd Floor, Warren Road, Chennai Mylapore, Chennai-600 004. [Pan-Atjps2126B] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलधर्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri V.Padmanabhan, C.A. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri P.Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.05.2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri V.Padmanabhan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri P.Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 90

provides that Form 67 should be filed on or before the due date of filing the return of income as prescribed under section 139(1) of the Act. However, the Rule nowhere provides that if the said Form 67 is not filed within the above stated time frame, the relief ... have specifically provided that the FTC would be disallowed if the assesse does not file Form 67 within the due date prescribed under section 139(1) of the Act. There are many sections in the Act which specifically deny deduction or exemption or relief in case the return

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Non Corporate Circle-10, Chennai vs. Sj Suryah, Chennai

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

ITA 594/CHNY/2024[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 May 2024AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.806/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2002-03 V. Shri S.J.Suryah, The Asst. Commissioner- No.35-1D, Of Income Tax, 114, Neelakanta Mehta Street, Central Circle-2(4), T. Nagar, Chennai-600 017. Chennai. [Pan: Alyps 3012 R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

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

Mudhiyor Balarkudumba Grama Pannai, Vellore vs. Exemptions Ward 1, Chennai

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

ITA 592/CHNY/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 May 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.592/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23)

For Appellant: Shri. M. Abhishek, FCAFor Respondent: Shri S. Easwar, IRS, JCIT

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 250Section 51

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

Roots Industries India Private Limited, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle (1), Coimbatore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 46/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.46/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. M/S.Roots Industries India Pvt. Ltd., The Dy. Commissioner – R.K.G. Industrial Estate, Of Income Tax, Ganapathy, Corporate Circle-(1), Coimbatore-641 006. Coimbatore. [Pan: Aabcr 0314 E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Suraj Nahar, CAFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 80I

furnishing a declaration before the assessing officer and that too before the due date of filing the original return of income under section 139(1) are to be satisfied and both are mandatorily to be complied with. Accordingly, the question of law is answered in favour of the Revenue

Rajabather Sampath Chennai, Chennai vs. ITO, Non Corporate Ward-8(1), Chennai

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

ITA 21/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.21/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 V. Shri Rajabather Sampath, The Income Tax Officer, 1/11, Balambigai Nagar, Non-Corporate Ward-8(1), 4Th Street, Ramapuram, Chennai. Nandambakkam, Kudiyiruppu S.O., Kanchipuram, Chennai-600 089. [Pan: Bbkps 5373 Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

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

Section 139(1)Section 148Section 249(4)(b)

Shri.S.J.Suryah, Chennai, Tamil Nadu vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(4), Chennai

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

ITA 806/CHNY/2023[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 May 2024AY 2002-03

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Ravuthu Meera Ravuthar Abdul Razack, Pudukkottai vs. ITO, Ward 1, Pudukkottai, Pudukkoattai

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

ITA 1550/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1550/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. Shri Ravuthu Meera – The Income Tax Officer, Ravuthar Abdul Razack, Ward-1, 5, Kamarajar Stree, Alangudi, Pudukkottai. Pudukkottai-622 301. [Pan: Ahlpa 6315 Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Y. Sridhar, FCAFor Respondent: Dr. D. Praveen, JCIT

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 69

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

Nirav D. Udani( Executor to the Estate of Late Shri Jitendra Hatiben Udani), Mumbai vs. Int Tax Ward 4(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 296/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt. Renu Jauhariassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Anuj Kishnadwala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Nagnath Pasale, D.R

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 90

income for A.Y. 2019-20 on 31.07.2019 and has not filed form No.67 before the due date of filing the return under section 139(1) of the Act but filed form No.67 as prescribed under rule 128 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (in short ‘the Rules’) on 31.12.2019, thus ... assessee failed to furnish form No.67 to claim foreign tax credit on or before the due date of filing of the return under section 139(1) of the Act. Therefore, the assessee has not followed the Rule 128 of the Rules in respect of filing form No.67 on or before

DCIT Central Circle 6(1), Mumbai, Nariman Point Mumbai vs. Gnp Realty LLP, Thane

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands partly allowed

ITA 3105/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Nishit Gandhi, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, D.R

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 250

instant case, the assessee had declared its total income at Rs.2,90,943/- by filing its return of income under section 139(1) on 15.03.2022 for the assessment year under consideration. Subsequently, a search and seizure action under section 132 of the Act was conducted in the middleman/businessmen group

Shree Bankey Bihari Educational Society, Ghaziabad vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 925/DEL/2024[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2024AY 2022-2023

Bench: Ld. CIT(A) and filed detailed submissions before him the same is reproduced below:

For Appellant: 1) That the appellant has e filed its ITR of the AY 2022-23 on 24.12.2022

Section 11Section 12A(1)(ac)Section 143(1)Section 2(15)Section 80G(5)(i)

were dismissed by the CIT(A) who was of the firm belief that return has been filed beyond due date as mandated in section 139 (1) of the Act. The CIT(A) also dismissed the claim of the assessee that it is squarely covered by the CBDT instruction (supra

Vaibhav Singhal, Bangalore vs. ITO Ward 3(3)(5), Saharanpur

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

ITA 3585/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Sudhir Pareekvaibhav Singhal, Vs. Ito, Ward 3(3)(5), 102, Golden Paradise, Saharanpur. 2Nd Cross Street, Hennur Bande Bus Stop, Bangalore – 560 043 (Karnataka). (Pan : Dawps9391K) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.P. Chitambram, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.05.2024 Date Of Order : 29.05.2024 Order Per Shamim Yahya: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Dated 12.10.2023 For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Assessee Read As Under :- “1. The Appellants Objects To The Order Dated 12 October 2023 Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’) Issued By The Commissioner Of Income- Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) For The Aforesaid Assessment Year On The Following Grounds: 2. Denial Or Claim Of Foreign Tax Credit U/S 90 Of The Act

For Appellant: Shri S.P. Chitambram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234CSection 250Section 90

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘H’ : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI SUDHIR

Namita Tiwari, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 2(1), Faridabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2980/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2980/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271ASection 271F

I.T.A.No.2980/Del/2023 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Anubhav Kapoor, Lucknow vs. Income Tax Officer - 2(1)(1), Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2364/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2016-17]

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 50CSection 50C(2)Section 54Section 54(2)Section 54B

consideration realized on sale of property in question, had not been invested in purchase of residential flat, within the time prescribed under section 139(1) of the Act; (6) the express term used under section 54(2) referred to investment made prior to filing of "return of income" under section

Sakina Ahmedali Kantavala, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(4), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 41/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member Assessment Year : 2017-18 Sakina Ahmedali Kantavala The Income Tax Officer 122 Kutbi Mohalla 1/N Kalupur Vs Ward-1(2)(4) Darwaja Ahmedabad Kalupur Ahmedabad – 380 001 Gujarat Pan:Eqepk 9096 J अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K. Sadhwani, Ar Revenue By : Shri N.J. Vyas, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 16 /05/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28 /05/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokarthe Present Appeal Has Been Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Cit(A)”] Dated 28.11.2023, Arising In The Matter Of Assessment Order Passed U/S 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") Relevant To The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-2018. 2. Following Grounds Of Appeal Are Taken By The Assessee: Sakina Ahmedali Kantavala Vs. Ito Asst. Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Sadhwani, ARFor Respondent: Shri N.J. Vyas, Sr.DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

Income Tax Act, 1961, an Assessing Officer (AO) can make a best judgment/assessment, if an assessee: a. Fails to file a return under section 139(1) of the Act or in response to a notice under section 142(1) of the Act. b. Fails to comply with all the terms

Rajendra Damodhar Jadhav, Aurangabad vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Aurangabad

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

ITA 717/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.717/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Respondent: Shri R.Y. Balawade

Section 139(1)Section 144Section 148Section 246ASection 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)

case are that the appellant is an individual working as Salesman in Electrical Shop. No regular Return of Income under the provisions of section 139(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘The Act’) was filed for the A.Y. 2012-13. 2 Subsequently, based

Pudipeddi Venkata Nagamani, Visakhapatnam vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 167/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.167/Viz/2024 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Pudipeddi Venkata Nagamani Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.43-3-34, Flat No.102 Ward-2(1) Ayyappa Residency Visakhapatnam Railway New Colony Visakhapatnam [Pan :Ajxpn9659G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Smt.A.Aruna, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Aparna Villuri, DR

Section 115BSection 131Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 144Section 69Section 69A

आयकरअपीलीयअधिकरण, धिशाखापटणम ‘SMC” पीठ, धिशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM ‘SMC” BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM श्री दुव्वूरु आर एल रेड्डी