“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)

Marsh India Insurance Brokers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt/Dy/Asstt/CIT/ITO/NFAC, Delhi

In the result, both the appeal

ITA 642/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2016-17 & Assessment Year: 2017-18 Marsh India Insurance Brokers Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Private Limited, Commissioner Of Income 1201-02, Tower, One India Vs. Tax/Income-Tax Officer, National Bulls Centre, Jupiter Mills E-Assessment Centre, Delhi. Compound, Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Road (West), Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aadcm 4220 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Madhur Agrawal Revenue By : Mr. Manoj Kumar, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Mr. Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Mr. Manoj Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 234ASection 234B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “J” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI RAJ

Mangaldeep Multistate Urban Co.Op.Cr. Soc. Ltd., Kolkatta vs. ACIT - CC- 2 (1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 2014-

ITA 2150/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Prasad KulkarniFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal

Section 13Section 147Section 151Section 250Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH

Mangaldeep Multistate Urban Co.Op.Cr. Soc. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT - CC- 2 (1), Mumbai

ITA 2149/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Prasad KulkarniFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal

Section 132Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 147Section 151Section 250Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH

Mangaldeep Multistate Urban Cooperative Credit Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT, CC 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 2014-

ITA 2138/MUM/2022[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Prasad KulkarniFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal

Section 13Section 147Section 151Section 250Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH

Marsh India Insurance Brokers Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl /Jtdy/ACIT/ITO/NFAC, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeal

ITA 2471/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2024AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Mr. Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Mr. Manoj Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 234ASection 234B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “J” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI RAJ

Income-Tax Officer, Ahmedabad vs. Jhaveri Sandeep Bipinchandra (HUF), Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 805/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra R. Kambleassessment Year : 2016-17 Jhaveri Sandeep Income Tax Officer, Vs. Bipinchandra (Huf), Ward-5(3)(1), 21, Crest Nutan Laxmi Soc., Ahmedabad 9Th Road, Jvpd Scheme, Juhu, Mumbai, Maharashtra 400049 Pan : Aachj 0855 Q अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Deepak Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15.02.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 10.05.2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Annapurna Guptapresent Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against Order Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Pune-12 [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)" For Short] Dated 24.08.2023 Passed Under Section 250(6) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act" For Short], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17. 2. Ground Of Appeal No.1 Raised By The Department Reads As Under:- “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Treating The Income Of Rs. 54,49,539/- As Short Term Capital Gain Instead Of Business Income.” 3. The Issue Raised In The Above Ground Relates To The Short Term Capital Gain Returned By The Assessee, On The Transactions Of Dealing In Shares, As Ito Vs Jhaveri Sandeep Bipinchandra Huf Ay : 2016-17 2

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr DR

Section 250(6)

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

Shri. Boregowda Rajanna, Bangalore vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 304/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Narendra Kumar Naik

Section 115BSection 144Section 234Section 249(4)(b)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 4Section 69A

Page 1 ITA No. 304/Bang/2024 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC-'A' BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT

A.C.I.T. - 11(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Sahara Q Gold Mart Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 6333/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Ble

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 46ASection 68

reason that in the original assessment for the year 1962-63, a mistake at crept in while making out interest under Section 139(1)(iii). Thereafter, the Income Tax Officer issued a notice to the assessee proposing to rectify the mistake under Section 154 and calling upon the objections

A.C.I.T. - 11(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Sahara Q Shop Unique Products Range Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 6332/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Ble

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 46ASection 68

Talented Aspirants Peoples Action to the Society for Vigorous India, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Exemption Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 222/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaनिर्धारण अपीलधर्थी / प्रत्‍यर्थी / आ.अपी.सं वर्ा / Appellant Respondent / Ita No. A.Y. Talented Aspirants 222/Hyd/2024 2018-19 Dcit, Peoples Action To Exemption The Society For Circle-1(1), Vigorous India, Hyderabad 208/Hyd/2024 2021-22 Hyderabad [Pan: Aaatt6716A]

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, DR

Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “A”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI LALIET KUMAR

Talented Aspirants Peoples Action to the Society for Vigorous India, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Exemption Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 208/HYD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 May 2024AY 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, DR

Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “A”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI LALIET KUMAR

Divyapalsinh Tejpalsinh Jadeja, Vadodara vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1)(1), Vadodara

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

ITA 579/AHD/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 34(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 438Section 43B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “C” BENCH Before: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member And Shri Narendra Prasad

Divyapalsinh Tejpalsinh Jadeja, Vadodara vs. Deputy Commisioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1)(1), Vadodara

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

ITA 578/AHD/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 34(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 438Section 43B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “C” BENCH Before: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member And Shri Narendra Prasad

The DCIT, Central Circle-2, Vadodara vs. M/S. Neotech Education Foundation, Vadodara

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 47/AHD/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 260ASection 269SSection 271(1)(c)Section 271D

Firstly, we are taking up the appeal filed by the Revenue being ITA No.47/Ahd/2023. The return of income was filed under Section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 31.10.2015 declaring total loss of Rs.(-) 73,18,039/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and notice under Section

The DCIT, Central Circle-2, Vadodara vs. M/S. Neotech Education Foundation, Vadodara

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 192/AHD/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 260ASection 269SSection 271(1)(c)Section 271D

M/S. Neotech Education Foundation, Vadodara vs. The Jt.CIT, Central Range, Vadodara

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 109/AHD/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 260ASection 269SSection 271(1)(c)Section 271D

M/S. Neotech Education Foundation, Vadodara vs. The Jt.CIT, Central Range, Vadodara

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 108/AHD/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 260ASection 269SSection 271(1)(c)Section 271D

Tamilnadu Civil Supplies Corporation, Chennai vs. ACIT, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 88/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 May 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.88/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 Tamilnadu Civil Supplies Corporation, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 10, Thambusamy Road, Kilpauk, Income Tax/Ito, Chennai 600 010. Corporate Circle 3(1), Chennai. [Pan: Aabct0551H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri P. Selva Moorthy, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 01.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.05.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Against The Order Dated 16.11.2023 Passed By The Nfac [Addl./Jcit(A), Varanasi] For The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. Ground No. 1 Raised By The Assessee Challenging The Action Of Ld. Addl./Jcit(A) In Treating Employees’ Pf Contribution As Income By Invoking The Provisions Of Section 36(1)(Va) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri P. Selva Moorthy, C.AFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT

Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(va)

I.T.A. No.88/Chny/24 3. We note that the assessee remitted employees’ PF 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 ... 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 statute. Therefore, we find no infirmity

Manju Krishnappa, Bangalore vs. Additional Director of Income Tax Appeal, CPC Bangalore and the Income Tax Officer Ward 1(2)Bangalore, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 569/BANG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 May 2024AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Smt. Itu Singh, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, D.R

Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 234BSection 234CSection 90

resident and ordinarily resident (ROR) of India for AY 2018-19, filed his original return of income on 30 August 2019 under section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"). Further the appellant filed revised return of income under section 139(5) on August ... there was a delay in filling Form 67 i.e., it was filed after the due date for filling original return of prescribed under section 139(1). The said issue under consideration is no longer res integra. It is to that on identical issue, the co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal, Bangalore

Moog Motion Controls Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 184/BANG/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 May 2024AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2019-20 M/S. Moog Motion Controls Pvt. Ltd., Acit, Site No.42-43, Doraisanipalya Circle – 4(1)(1), Village, Vs. Bengaluru. Opp. Oracle (Kalyani Magnum), Bilekahalli, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru – 560 076. Pan : Aadcm 3828 J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Srinivas K. P, Ca Revenue By : Shri. V. Parithivel, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 20.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.05.2024

For Appellant: Shri. Srinivas K. P, CAFor Respondent: Shri. V. Parithivel, JCIT(DR)(ITAT)

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 90

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