← 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)

Mr Ramanath Bajpai, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(4), Pune

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

ITA 218/PUN/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune02 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.218/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Mr. Ramanath Bajpai, Vs. Ito, Ward-4(4), Pune. B.No.5, S.No.245, Anant Co-Op Housing Society, Aundh, Pune- 411007. Pan : Ailpb5763E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Gopal Aswani Revenue By : Shri A. K. Mahala Date Of Hearing : 25.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.05.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.10.2023 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Present Appeal Is Filed Belatedly I.E. With The Delay Of 44 Days. The Appellant Furnished An Affidavit Praying For Condonation Of Delay In The Circumstances Mentioned Therein. The Relevant Portion Of The Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Is Reproduced Hereunder :-

For Appellant: Shri Gopal AswaniFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Mahala
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69A

case are that the appellant is an individual. No return of income for the year under consideration was filed under the provisions of section 139(1) of the Act. Based on the information available with the AIR that the appellant had made cash deposit of Rs.10 lakhs or more

DCIT, Central Circle, Kolkata vs. Merlins, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 907/KOL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 May 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 907/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Merlins Merlin House Tax, Central Circle -2(3), Kolkata Vs Samghu Nath Pandit Street Bhowanipore Kolkata - 700020 [Pan : Aatfm9627P] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A.K. Tulsyan, Fca Revenue By : Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06/02/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02/05/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 20, Kolkata (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 02/06/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of 28 Days In Filing Of This Appeal. There Is A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Stating Therein, The Reasons For The Delay. On Perusal Of The Petition, We Are Convinced That The Revenue Was Prevented For Reasonable Cause From Filing This Appeal In Prescribed Time Limit. Accordingly, We Condone The Delay & Admit The Appeal For Hearing On Merits.

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tulsyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, D/R
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 250Section 68

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