← 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)

Compact Texfab Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 6(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 9524/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri M. Balaganeshcompact Texfab Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Ito, 1032, H. No. 66, Gali No. Ward-6(2), 33, Jafrabad, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcc3621P Assessee By : Shri Akhilesh Kumar, Adv Shri Ankit Kumar, Adv Revenue By: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 07/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 03/04/2024

For Appellant: Shri Akhilesh Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “B”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI M

Devinder Singh Sahney, Mumbai vs. ITO (It) 4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1585/MUM/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Apr 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRIGAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.J.Pardiwal, Sr. Advocate with S/Shri Madhur Agrawal, Fenil Bhatt &For Respondent: S/Shri Miland Chavan & Anil Sant, Sr. DRs
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148

form of capital gain or interest or dividend has always been disclosed in the return of income filed in India. Fourth proviso to Section 139(1) of the Act requires that a person who is resident of India to disclose the details of foreign assets in the return of income ... assessee has signing authority. Even the Schedule FA of 2015 explains object behind various amendments made by the Finance Act 2012 in Section 139(1) which only refers to the cases of resident assessees. Thus, the assessee being a non-resident was not required to disclose any asset held outside

Hem Lata Jhunjhunwala, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-11(2), Kolkata.

In the result, grounds taken by the assessee in this respect for AY 2011-12 are allowed

ITA 751/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Kataruka, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Prabhakar Prakash Ranjan, Addl. CIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT

Hem Lata Jhunjhunwala, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-11(2), Kolkata.

In the result, grounds taken by the assessee in this respect for AY 2011-12 are allowed

ITA 750/KOL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Kataruka, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Prabhakar Prakash Ranjan, Addl. CIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT

Saurabh Agrotech (P) Ltd, Alwar vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Alwar

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as per terms indicated above

ITA 154/JPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri. Ajay Malik (CIT) a
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 801B

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Jh euh"k cksjkM

Jairaj Singh Solanki, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 2(4), Jaipur

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

ITA 153/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Mar 2024AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta (Adv.)
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 272ASection 272A(1)(d)Section 273B

ara aitcita after, cage =aradis, aayR IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR a ale anise, cat

Aspen International Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-Central Circle-4(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3465/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘SMC‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax -23(1), Mumbai vs. Kalpsaru Diamonds, Mumbai

In the result, the grounds raised by the assessee as well as In the result, the grounds raised by the assessee as well as Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3400/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Years: 2012-13 Kalpsaru Diamonds, Acit 23(2), Jw 8040/250, Bharat Diamond Piramal Chambers, Vs. Bourse, Bkc, Bandra East, Mumbai-400013. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaafk 6960 H Appellant Respondent Assessment Years: 2012-13 Dy. Cit-23(1), Kalpsaru Diamonds, Room No. 511, Fifth Floor, Jw 8040/250, Bharat Diamond Piramal Chambers, Parel, Vs. Bourse, Bkc, Bandra East, Lalbaugh-400012. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaafk 6960 H Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Mr. Ajay Singh
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 69C

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

Kalpsaru Diamonds, Mumbai vs. ACIT 23(2), Mumbai

In the result, the grounds raised by the assessee as well as In the result, the grounds raised by the assessee as well as Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3223/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Years: 2012-13 Kalpsaru Diamonds, Acit 23(2), Jw 8040/250, Bharat Diamond Piramal Chambers, Vs. Bourse, Bkc, Bandra East, Mumbai-400013. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaafk 6960 H Appellant Respondent Assessment Years: 2012-13 Dy. Cit-23(1), Kalpsaru Diamonds, Room No. 511, Fifth Floor, Jw 8040/250, Bharat Diamond Piramal Chambers, Parel, Vs. Bourse, Bkc, Bandra East, Lalbaugh-400012. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaafk 6960 H Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Mr. Ajay Singh
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 69C

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

Defsys Solutions Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-15, New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 758/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 144CSection 153ASection 156Section 270ASection 271ASection 274Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘I’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND MS ASTHA

Seo Lehenga House, Jagraon vs. DCIT Central Circle(3), Ludhiana

In the result, ground no. 3,4,5 & 6(a) are dismissed as not pressed and ground no

ITA 618/CHANDI/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Mar 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate and Shri Rishabh Marwah, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum, CIT, DR
Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69Section 69C

finally heard or disposed off.” 3. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee filed its original return of income under section 139(1) on 20/09/2013 declaring total income of Rs. 90,47,350/- which was assessed at Rs. 92,94,440/- under section 143(3) dt. 23/06/2016

Seo Bridal Studio Pvt Ltd, Ludhiana vs. DCIT Central Circle(3), Ludhiana

In the result, ground no. 3,4,5 & 6(a) are dismissed as not pressed and ground no

ITA 617/CHANDI/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Mar 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate and Shri Rishabh Marwah, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum, CIT, DR
Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69Section 69C

finally heard or disposed off.” 3. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee filed its original return of income under section 139(1) on 20/09/2013 declaring total income of Rs. 90,47,350/- which was assessed at Rs. 92,94,440/- under section 143(3) dt. 23/06/2016

M/S Seo Lehenga House, Jagraon vs. DCIT, Central Circle -3, Ludhiana

In the result, ground no. 3,4,5 & 6(a) are dismissed as not pressed and ground no

ITA 310/CHANDI/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Mar 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate and Shri Rishabh Marwah, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum, CIT, DR
Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69Section 69C

finally heard or disposed off.” 3. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee filed its original return of income under section 139(1) on 20/09/2013 declaring total income of Rs. 90,47,350/- which was assessed at Rs. 92,94,440/- under section 143(3) dt. 23/06/2016

M/S Seo Lehenga House, Jagraon vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3, Ludhiana

In the result, ground no. 3,4,5 & 6(a) are dismissed as not pressed and ground no

ITA 309/CHANDI/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Mar 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate and Shri Rishabh Marwah, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum, CIT, DR
Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69Section 69C

finally heard or disposed off.” 3. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee filed its original return of income under section 139(1) on 20/09/2013 declaring total income of Rs. 90,47,350/- which was assessed at Rs. 92,94,440/- under section 143(3) dt. 23/06/2016

M/S Seo Lehenga House, Jagraon vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3, Ludhiana

In the result, ground no. 3,4,5 & 6(a) are dismissed as not pressed and ground no

ITA 308/CHANDI/2022[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Mar 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate and Shri Rishabh Marwah, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum, CIT, DR
Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69Section 69C

finally heard or disposed off.” 3. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee filed its original return of income under section 139(1) on 20/09/2013 declaring total income of Rs. 90,47,350/- which was assessed at Rs. 92,94,440/- under section 143(3) dt. 23/06/2016

M/S Seo Lehenga House, Jagraon vs. DCIT-Central Circle-3, Ludhiana

In the result, ground no. 3,4,5 & 6(a) are dismissed as not pressed and ground no

ITA 307/CHANDI/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Mar 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate and Shri Rishabh Marwah, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum, CIT, DR
Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69Section 69C

finally heard or disposed off.” 3. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee filed its original return of income under section 139(1) on 20/09/2013 declaring total income of Rs. 90,47,350/- which was assessed at Rs. 92,94,440/- under section 143(3) dt. 23/06/2016

Chanubanda Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society Ltd, Krishna Dist vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(5), Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 152/VIZ/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam27 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.152/Viz/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2017-18) The Chanubanda Primary Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Agricultural Cooperative Credit Ward-3(5), Society Limited, Chanubanda Vijayawada. Village, Chatrai Mandal, Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh–521214. Pan: Aacat 7978 H (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Asrss Siva Prasad, Ar प्रत्यधर्थी की ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

For Appellant: Sri ASRSS Siva Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 80ASection 80A(5)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

Cooperative Bank, Chatrai, Krishna District. The assessee did not file its return of income before the due date as per the provisions of section 139(1) of the Act, and therefore a notice U/s. 142(1) of the Act was issued on 9/3/2018 wherein the assessee was called for return ... contra, the Ld. DR submitted that the assessee has not filed a valid return of income in accordance with the provisions of section 139(1) or 139(4) of the Act in order to claim deduction u/s. 80P of the Act. The Ld. DR further submitted that as per section

The Chandragudem Primary Agrl Coop Credit Society Ltd, Krishna Dist vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(5), Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 118/VIZ/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam27 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.118/Viz/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) The Chandragudem Primary Agrl. Vs. Income Tax Officer, Coop. Credit Society Limited Noh Ward-3(5), 2091, Chandragudem Village, Vijayawada. Mylavaram Mandal, Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh-521230. Pan: Aacat 8165 C (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Asrss Siva Prasad, Ar प्रत्यधर्थी की ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/03/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of : 27/03/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy:

For Appellant: Sri ASRSS Siva Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 80A(5)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

Cooperative Bank, Mylavaram, Krishna District. The assessee did not file its return of income before the due date as per the provisions of section 139(1) of the Act, a notice U/s. 142(1) of the Act was issued on 9/3/2018 wherein the assessee was called for return of income ... contra, the Ld. DR submitted that the assessee has not filed a valid return of income in accordance with the provisions of section 139(1) or 139(4) of the Act in order to claim deduction u/s. 80P of the Act. The Ld. DR further submitted that as per section

M/S Avm Charities, Chennai vs. ITO, Exemption Ward, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2012-13 to 2014-15 are allowed and appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2015-16 to 2018-19 are partly allowed

ITA 1638/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishna, FCA &For Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT
Section 11Section 11(4)Section 13(1)(c)Section 147Section 164(2)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी वी. दुगा" राव, माननीय

M/S Avm Charities, Chennai vs. ITO, Exemption Ward, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2012-13 to 2014-15 are allowed and appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2015-16 to 2018-19 are partly allowed

ITA 1637/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishna, FCA &For Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT
Section 11Section 11(4)Section 13(1)(c)Section 147Section 164(2)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी वी. दुगा" राव, माननीय