“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)

Chodisetty Hemashankar, Tuni vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Tuni

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

ITA 74/VIZ/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam19 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.74/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-16) Chodisetty Hemashankar, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Tuni. Ward-1, Pan: Akupc 0617 K Tuni. (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar प्रत्यधर्थी की ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 01/04/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of : 19/04/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy:

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)Section 69A

आयकर अपीलीयअधिकरण, विशाखापटणम पीठ, विशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM श्री दुव्िूरु आर एल रेड्डी, न्याययक

Mjunction Services Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 1(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed as indicated above

ITA 203/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Ashis Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 36(1)(va)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT

Vikash Daga, Gurghaon vs. DCIT, Circle 3(1), Gurgaon

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

ITA 1812/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2018-19 Vikash Daga, Vs Dcit, D-022, The Belaire, Circle 3(1), Golf Course Road, Gurgaon. Dlf V, Gurgaon, Haryana – 122 002. Pan: Adipd4214E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sanjeev Kachhal, Ca Revenue By : Shri Sumesh Swani, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 24.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.04.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 08.05.2023 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or In Short Ld. ‘Faa’) In Appeal No.Nfac/2017-18/10084687 Arising Out Of The Appeal Before It Against The Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’), By The Ito, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao).

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Kachhal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumesh Swani, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 90

Disallowed Rs. 43,07,8557- Form 67 for AY 2018-19 has not been furnished before the due date as provided under section 139(1) in compliance to rule 128(9) 4(i) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned AO has erred both on facts

Adiwasi Dudhg Utpadak Krishi Purak Sangh, Nndurbar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Dhule

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 413/PUN/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Apr 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri Manish Mehta

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 80P

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “SMC” BENCH : PUNE BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A.No.413/PUN./2024

Santipur Thana Co-Operative Agricultural Marketing Society Ltd., Nadia vs. DCIT, CPC, Bengalore

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 135/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(1)(ii)Section 80P

perused the material on record. In the instant facts, admittedly the assessee did not file return of income within the time permissible under section 139(1) of the Act. However, the assessee filed its return of income belatedly on 28-11-2020 and claimed deduction of ₹ 2,12,008/- under ... issue for consideration before us is that whether once the return of income is filed beyond the prescribed date under section 139(1) of the Act, can the deduction under section 80P of the Act be denied to the assessee, by way of adjustment under section 143(1

Jatrapur Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Ltd., Nadia vs. DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 134/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(1)(ii)Section 80P

General Insurance Employees Co-Opt. Credit Soc. Ltd., Siliguri vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 117/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Sujit Basu, Advocate and Shri Rajib MukharjeeFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Tiwari, JCIT, Sr. D/R

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80ASection 80P

| आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "यायपीठ, कोलकाता | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC ” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, HON’BLE

Deepak Shimoga Padmaraju, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(5), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 239/BANG/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Apr 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri George George Kshri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2021-22

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal, Advocate byFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Department

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)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

Sai Service Private Limited, Pune vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-10, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1075/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1074 & 1075/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2018-19 Sai Service Private Limited, Dcit, Circle-10, Mumbai Pune Road, Vs Pune Phugewadi, Pune 411 012 Maharashtra Pan : Aabcs4998M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Smt. Deepa Khare– Ar Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak- Dr Date Of Hearing 22/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 16/04/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) In The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi Passed U/S.250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) On 04.09.2023 & 18.09.2023 Respectively For Assessment Years 2017-18 & 2018-19. Since Some Grounds Of Appeal Are Common In All These Appeals, We Proceed To Dispose Of These Appeals By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience. We Are Discussing A.Y.2017-18 Hereonwards.

Section 10Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 14ASection 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 80G

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

Sai Service Private Limited, Pune vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-10, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1074/PUN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Section 10Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 14ASection 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 80G

Maharashtra Nagri Co Op Credit Society Ltd, Hinghanghat vs. ITO, Ward-1, Wardha

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 52/NAG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur16 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir Atal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 80ASection 80A(5)Section 80P(2)(a)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR “SMC” BENCH :NAGPUR [VIRTUAL HEARING] BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A.No

Central Bank Staff Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd., Nagpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 378/NAG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur16 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir Atal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 80ASection 80P

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR “SMC” BENCH :NAGPUR [VIRTUAL HEARING] BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A.No

Kanta, Bhiwani vs. ITO Ward-1, Bhiwani

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in the aforesaid manner

ITA 2213/DEL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usa.Yr. : 2010-11 Smt. Kanta Vs. Income Tax Officer, Prop. Kanta Brick Kiln Co., Ward-1, Vpo Kayla Bhiwani, Bhiwani Haryana – 127021 (Pan: Ceppk1186J) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Rano Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 250Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND SHRI YOGESH

Rajesh Singla, Faridabad vs. DCIT Central Circle-II, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1560/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M. Balaganeshshri Rajesh Singla, Vs. Dcit, Plot No. 413, Sector-9, Central Circle-11, Faridabad-121006 Faridabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Ajxps4378R Assessee By : Shri Deepesh Garg, Adv Revenue By: Shri Dharambir Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 10/04/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 16/04/2024

For Appellant: Shri Deepesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Dharambir Singh, CIT DR

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 68

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT

Sindhudurg Zilla Madhyamik Va Uchha Madhyamik Shikshak Va Shikshketar Karmachari Patsanstha Ltd, Sindhudurgnagari Kudal vs. Income Tax Officer Kudal, Kudal

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 968/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.968/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Sindhuurg Zilla Madhyamik Va The Income Tax Officer, Uchha Madhyamik Shikshak Va V Kudal. Shikshketar Karmachari S Patsanstha Ltd., Plot No.33, Sindhudurgnagari, Kudal Dist, Sindhudurg. Maharashtra – 416812. Pan: Aagas6518L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod Shingte – Ar Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak, Irs – Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing 22/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 15/04/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 30.08.2023 Emanating From Assessment Order Passed Under Section 144 R.W.S 144B Of The Act Dated 21.04.2021. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 139(1)Section 144Section 250Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(2)(f)

and/or u/s 80P(2)(d) which the appellant had inadvertently claimed u/s 80P(2)(f) in its return under section 139(1) but had rectified the mistake by filing a revised return. The appellant craves leave to add to, amend, alter, delete or modify all or any of the above ... fact by the assessee that it had made claim under section 80P(2)(f) of the Act in the Original Return filed under section 139(1) of the Act. It is also an admitted fact that assessee had claimed to have filed Revised Return for claiming deduction under section

Gopal Parihar, Dhar vs. ITO, Dhar

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

ITA 540/IND/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore15 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanigopal Parihar Ito Village Jajamkhedi Manawar Dhar Vs. Dhar (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Ayipp2800K Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 08.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 15 .04.2024

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 44ASection 69A

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY

Mr. Riyaz Ahmed, Chikamagalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Chikmagalore

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

ITA 1130/BANG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Nulvi, Advocate

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC-‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI

DCIT Cent. Cir. -5(3) (Erstwhile DCIT Cent. Cir. -36), Mumbai vs. Jyoti A. Kulkarni, Pune

ITA 5119/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Apr 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL

Jyoti Ajit Kulkarni, Pune vs. DCIT Cent. Cir. 5(3), Mumbai

ITA 5073/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri ChandrasekharFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair – (SR DR)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL

Jyoti Ajit Kulkarni, Pune vs. DCIT Cent. Cir. 5(3), Mumbai

ITA 5072/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri ChandrasekharFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair – (SR DR)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL