← 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)

Markolines Infra Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT/DCIT Circle 15(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 2020-

ITA 366/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 May 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Gagan Goyaland

For Appellant: Shri Pradip KapasiFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT

Markolines Infra Pvt Ltd., Belapur vs. ACIT/DCIT Circle-15(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1170/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 May 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Gagan Goyaland

For Appellant: Shri Pradip KapasiFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT

ACIT-15(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Markolines Infra Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 2967/MUM/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 May 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Pradip KapasiFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT

Hallex Applied Power Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-11(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 230/DEL/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2010-11]

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

Grindwell Norton v/s. Jagdish Prasad Jabgid, ACIT - [(2004) 267 ITR 673 (Bom)] 3.4. The AO held that as per the provisions of section 139(1) of the Act, the assessee company was mandatorily required to furnish its return of income or loss for every previous year and by not doing ... undisputed that the assessee company did not file its return of income for AY 2010-11, which as per the provisions of section 139(1) of the Act, it was mandatorily required to do so. The AO noted this fact and about the turnover of Rs.4,87,50,347/-, which

M/S Barnala Builders and Consultant, Zirakpur vs. DCIT/ACIT (Cen)-1, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 274/CHANDI/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)

contribution of Rs. 2,46,952/- towards PF/ESI belatedly, however, the said deposits were made prior to filing of return of income under section 139(1) of the Act. 4.1 It was further submitted that the assessee appreciates that the legal position has changed now after the decision

M/S Jeevan Vikas Nagari Sahakar Sanstha Maryadit, Gunjaliwadi, Ahmednagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, Ahmednagar

Appeals of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.06 & 07/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" : Assessment Years : 2015-16 & 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69ASection 80P

appellant is a Cooperative Society engaged in providing credit facilities to its members. 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. However, the Assessing Officer (AO) formed opinion that income escaped assessment

M/S Jeevan Vikas Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Gunjualwadii, Ahmednagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, Ahmednagar

Appeals of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.06 & 07/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" : Assessment Years : 2015-16 & 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69ASection 80P

appellant is a Cooperative Society engaged in providing credit facilities to its members. 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. However, the Assessing Officer (AO) formed opinion that income escaped assessment

Shri Vikram Madhukar Deshmukh, Pune vs. DCIT, Central Circle 1(3), Pune

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 329/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri B.C. MalakarFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak, Addl.CIT
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS ASTHA

Shri Vikram Madhukar Deshmukh, Pune vs. DCIT, Central Circle 1(3), Pune

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 328/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri B.C. MalakarFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak, Addl.CIT
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS ASTHA

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-8, Pune vs. Sandvik Coromant India Pvt Ltd, Pune

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 1072/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1072/Pun/2023 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 The Dy.Commissioner Of Sandvik Coromant India Pvt. Income Tax, Circle-8, Vs Ltd., Pune. Mumbai Pune Road, Dapodi, Pune – 411012. Pan: Aaccs6638K Appellant/ Revenue Respondent /Assessee Cross Objection No.7/Pun/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Sandvik Coromant India The Dy.Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income Tax, Circle-8, Pune. Mumbai Pune Road, Dapodi, Pune – 411012. Pan: Aaccs6638K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Nikhil Patakh – Ar Revenue By Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari – Dr Date Of Hearing 15/04/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 07/05/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Ita 1072/Pn/2023 Filed By The Revenue & Cross Objection Co No.7/Pun/2024 Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] U/S.250 Of The Act, For A.Y.2018-19

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 43B

।आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ”बी” "ायपीठ पुणेम"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “B” :: PUNE BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL

Deepak Switch Gears Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. PCIT, Asansol

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 809/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.809/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Deepak Switch Gears Pvt. Ltd….…......................…...……………....Appellant 48/6, Suman Villa, 2Nd Floor, 155, Jessore Road, Kolkata-700055. [Pan: Aabcd1131H] Vs. Pcit, Asansol….....….........................................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri A. K. Tibrewal, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 08, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 07, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Revision Order Dated 30.12.2022 Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Pr. Cit’] Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). The Assessee In This Appeal Has Agitated Against The Action Of The Pr. Cit In Exercising His Revision Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Act & Thereby Directing The Assessing Officer To Frame The Assessment Afresh. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That The Appeal Is Time-Barred By 158 Days. A Separate Application Of Condonation Of Delay Has Been Filed, Wherein, It Has Been Pleaded That After Receipt Of The Impugned Order Of The Pr. Cit, The Assessee, Through Its Director, Shri Deep Kishan Saraf, Immediately Approached One Shri Pawan Kumar Agarwal, Chartered

Section 253Section 263Section 5

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ ‘बी’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH KOLKATA "ी संजय गग

ITO, Ward-6(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Daniel Commodities Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 645/KOL/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 May 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.645/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ito, Ward-6(1), Kolkata………..…….......................…...……………....Appellant Vs. M/S Daniel Commodities Pvt. Ltd…..........…..........................…..…..... Respondent 6, Lyons Range, Kolkata – 1. [Pan: Aaccd9344F] C.O. 4/Kol/2023 (A/O I.T.A. No.645/Kol/2020) Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Daniel Commodities Pvt. Ltd…………….....................…..…..... Cross-Objector 6, Lyons Range, Kolkata – 1. [Pan: Aaccd9344F] Vs Ito, Ward-6(1), Kolkata …………….......................…...……………....Respondent Appearances By: Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Department. Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 23, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 07, 2024

Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 263

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ ‘सी’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH KOLKATA "ी संजय गग

Farmers Agriculture Credit Co Operative Society Ltd Koppa, Periapatna vs. Income Tax Officer, Mysuru

ITA 71/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Sriram V. Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 56Section 57Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD

Farmers Agriculture Society Ltd Koppacredit Co Operative, Periapatna vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(4), Mysuru

ITA 65/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Sriram V. Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 56Section 57Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD

Abdul Nayab Shaikh, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 23(1)(1), Maturmandir, Mumbai

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 4012/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Gagan Goyal

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 4Section 54Section 54F

Gulbanu Shaikh& Rs. 25,00,000/- Mr. Shahid Shaikh (Son) The assessee had not filed any return of income under section 139(1) and not declared the income from capital gain. After receiving of notice under section 148, the assessee filed return with total income Nil. During the assessment proceedings

Income Tax Officer, Mumbai vs. P K Krishnan Educational Trust, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 3533/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 May 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm Income Tax Officer P K Krishnan Educational Trust 6Th Floor, Mtnl Building Shree Siddhi Vinayak Engl. Vs. Cumballa Hill, Pedder Road, High School, Hariyali Village Mumbai-400 026 Vikhroli (E), Mumbai-400 083 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaatp5026F

For Appellant: Shri Mandar Joshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri H.M. Bhatt, DR
Section 11Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 44A

explanation (ii) the specified date means, the date of one month prior to the date of furnishing of the return of income under Section 139(1) of the Act. This time limit is also imported u/s 12A (1) (b) of the Act. Thus, form no 10 B is also required

Arvind Kumar Taneja (HUF), New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-52(4), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 842/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Shreyansh Kushwaha, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Kanv Bali, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 139Section 139(1)Section 142Section 148Section 153Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Kul Bharat, Judicial Member Dr. B. R

ITO, Ward-5, Patiala vs. Sh. Kawaljeet Singh, Patiala

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 448/CHANDI/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 May 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 36Section 43B

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ “ए” , च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “A”, CHANDIGARH HEARING

ITO, Ward-5, Patiala vs. Sh. Kawaljeet Singh, Patiala

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 447/CHANDI/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 May 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 36Section 43B

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ “ए” , च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “A”, CHANDIGARH HEARING

ITO, Ward-5, Patiala vs. Sh. Kawaljeet Singh, Patiala

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 446/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 36Section 43B

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ “ए” , च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “A”, CHANDIGARH HEARING