← 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)

Syed Karimulla, Rajampet vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1, Cuddapah

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

ITA 149/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Syed Karimulla, Nandalur, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Rajampet, Ward – 1, D.No.5-98-C, C/O.Shaik Cuddapah Mastan Vali, Near Nandalur Bus Stand, Andhra Pradesh – 516510. Pan : Fddps8691Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Abhiroop Bhargav, C.A. Revenue By: Shri B. Yadagiri, Sr.Ar Date Of Hearing: 07.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.03.2024

For Appellant: Shri Abhiroop Bhargav, C.AFor Respondent: Shri B. Yadagiri, SR.AR
Section 115Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 234ASection 234BSection 69ASection 80CSection 80T

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “SMC”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2017-18

Kutumbh Care Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-14(4), Delhi

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

ITA 1482/DEL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmakutumbh Care Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Ito, 216A, 2Nd Floor, Gautam Ward-14(4), Nagar, New Delhi Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aadck0946K

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Garg, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sandip Kumar Mishra, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

relevant assessment year before the due date under the PF/ESI Acts. However, such contributions were deposited before the Assesse filed returns under Section 139 (1) of the IT Act. The ITAT relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chekmate Services Pvt. Ltd. & ors. V/s Commissioner ... there is no question of deduction or adjustment on the ground that such contributions were deposited before the filing of returns under Section 139(1) of the IT Act. 5. The ITAT has relied upon Chekmate Services Pvt. Ltd. (Supra), and its reasoning is entirely consistent with the law laid

Gandhinagar District Co.Op.Milk Producers Union Limited, Gandhinagar vs. The ACIT, Circle Gandhinaga, Gandhinagar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 512/AHD/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate & ShriFor Respondent: Dr. DArsi Suman Ratnam, CIT D.R. & Shri
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80PSection 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(2)(d)

notice, the appellant filed the return of income declaring the same income as in the original return of income filed under Section 139(1) of the Act. The re-assessment was completed holding that the interest and dividend income derived by the society does not come under the provisions

Solapur Dist M S K Samiti H Master T and N T Path Mydt Pandharpur, Pandharpur vs. ITO, Ward 2, Pandharpur

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 804/PUN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.804/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Solapur Dist M S K Samiti H The Income Tax Officer, Master T & N T Path V Ward-2, Pandharapur. Mydtpandharpur, S 3980, Station Road, Pandharpur. Maharashtra – 413304. Pan: Aanas9890E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 15/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 08/03/2024 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 11.05.2023 Emanating From Assessment Order Dated 30.07.2019Passed Under Section 144 R.W.S 144A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Assessee Was In Presumption That Co Operative Societies Income Is Exempt Under 80P Generally Maximum Co Solapur Dist M S K Samiti H Master T & N T Path Mydt Pandharpur [A]

Section 139(1)Section 144Section 250Section 80Section 80ASection 80PSection 8OSection 8Q

facts and in law in confirming the said action of the A.O. ignoring the fact that the failure to file return under Section 139(1),139(4) cannot denying deduction under section 80P. 9. AO failed provide explanation that addition made of Rs 7022690 /- under which head of income ... were made by the assessee in a return of income filed by him. That return can be under sections 139(1), 139(4), 142(1) or section 148, and to be valid, had to be filed within the due date contemplated under those provisions. Under section 80A(5), the claim

Fastner Commodeal Private Limited, Siliguri vs. ADIT (CPC), Bengaluru

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1010/KOL/2023[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Mar 2024AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawal]

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 143(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH ‘B’, KOLKATA [Before Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member & Shri Girish Agrawal, Accountant

Uma Maheshwar Rao Vendavelli, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5 (3)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 34/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore07 Mar 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Sri.Monish Sawkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Subramanian.S, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 90

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “B”, BANGALORE Before Shri George George K, Vice-President & Shri Laxmi Prasad

The Mangalorean Garden Homes Co-Operative Housing Society Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 23 (3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3852/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singh, The Mangalorean Garden Vs. Ito Ward 23(3) Homes Co-Operative Piramal Chamber Housing Society Limited, Mumbai - 110001 Rebello House, 132, Hill Road, Bandra (West), Mumbai – 400050 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaaat3420G Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Subhash S. Shetty Respondent By : Manish Ajudiya Date Of Hearing 04.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 07.03.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) Nfac, Dated 04.09.2023 For A.Y. 2018-19. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Dismissing The Appeal Of The Appellant & Confirming The Order Of The Assessing Officer Is Illegal, Bad In Law, Contrary To The Express Provisions Of The Act & Therefore Unsustainable In Law & Facts. 2. The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Committed A Gross Error Of Law & Fact In Confirming The Order Of The Assessing Officer Disallowing The Claim Of Deduction Of Rs.46,67,607/- Under Section 80P(2)(D) On The Ground That Appellant Has Failed To Submit Its Return Of Income Within The Stipulated Time Allowed Under Section 139(1) Of The Act. 3. The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Committed A Gross Error Of Law & Fact In Not Appreciating The Fact That The Return Of Income

For Appellant: Subhash S. ShettyFor Respondent: Manish Ajudiya
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 80P(2)(d)

section 80P(2)(d) on the ground that appellant has failed to submit its return of income within the stipulated time allowed under section 139(1) of the Act. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) committed a gross error of law and fact in not appreciating the fact ... Coperative Housing Society Ltd. Vs. ITO, Ward 23(3) filed by the appellant on 26-09-2018 is within the time prescribed under section 139(1) Explanation 2 clause (a) sub-clause(ii) where in the person (other than a company) whose accounts are required to be audited under this

Sanjeev Kumar Goel, Hapur vs. ITO Ward-3(5), Hapur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3187/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2013-14 Sanjeev Kumar Goyal, Vs. Ito, 607, Railway Road, Ward-3(5), Patel Nagar, Hapur, Hapur. Uttar Pradesh 245 101 Pan Aatpg1790N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr.DR
Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 271BSection 44A

ITA No.- 3187/Del/2023 Sanjeev Kumar Goyal vs. ITO INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G”: NEW DELHI BEFORE DR. BRR

Ushaben Maganbhai Patel, Vadodara vs. The ITO, Ward-1(2)(5) Now Ward-1(2)(1), Vadodara

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

ITA 210/AHD/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 50Section 54BSection 54FSection 69A

Khurd, Padra Taluka, Vadodara. 3. The assessee did not submit her return of income for assessment year 2011-12 as per provisions of Section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee deposited cash aggregating to Rs.11,00,000/- in her bank account

Adarsh Global Trades and Services Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle - 2(3), Hyderabad

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

ITA 70/HYD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2016-17 Adarsh Global Trades & Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Services Private Limited, Central Circle – 2(3), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aakca7278H. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri Sesha Srinivas, Cit-Dr 04.03.2024 Date Of Hearing: Date Of Pronouncement: 06.03.2024

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sesha Srinivas, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “B” , HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA

Britannia Industries Ltd, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-7(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 462/KOL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 35(1)(i)Section 43BSection 56(2)(x)Section 80J

invalid and ab initio void. 3. The facts in brief are that the assessee filed its return of income under section 139(1) of the Act on 30.11.2018 declaring total income at Rs.1432,82,52,530/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS and the assessment

M/S Enria Enterprises Pvt. Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT. Central Circle - 3(4), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1167/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh –
Section 2Section 270Section 270ASection 270A(9)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी मंजूनाथा. जी, लेखा सद

M/S Enrice Enterprises Pvt. Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3(4), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1166/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh –
Section 2Section 270Section 270ASection 270A(9)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी मंजूनाथा. जी, लेखा सद

Sri Praja Co-Operative Credit Society Limited, Bangalore vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 28/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Mar 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2020-21 M/S. Sri Praja Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd., Vs. Ito, No.1, 3Rd Main Road, Nagappa Block, Ward – 2(2)(1), Sriramapura, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 021. Pan : Aaajs 1557 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Srinivas Bharath, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Subramanian S, Addl. Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 06.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.03.2024

For Appellant: Shri. Srinivas Bharath, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

deduction under section 80P of the Act was that assessee did not file its return of income within the due date specified under section 139(1) of the Act. 5. Aggrieved by Order of Assessment denying the claim of deduction under section 80P of the Act, assessee preferred appeal before ... claiming deduction under section 80P of the Act, the return of income has to be filed within the due date specified under section 139(1) of the Act. In Page 4 of 7 view of the provisions of section 80AC of the Act, (which was introduced w.e.f. 01.04.2018), assessee cannot

ACIT, Central Circle-28, New Delhi vs. Stonex India Pvt Ltd, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1784/DEL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

engaged in the import and sale of marble and other natural stone from various countries. The assessee filed its return of income under Section 139(1) of the Act on 24.09.2013 declaring return income at Rs.2,91,61,280/-. The return so filed was subjected to regular assessment under Section

Sh. Pawan Kumar, Chandigarh vs. DCIT, Circle 1(1), Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 750/CHANDI/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Mar 2024AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Ahuja, Advocate and Shri Pawan Kumar, AssesseFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 90

provides that Form No. 67 should be filed on or before the due date of filing the return of income as prescribed under section 139(1) of the Act. However, the Rule nowhere provides that if the said Form is not filed within due date, the benefit of FTC would ... terms provides that necessary forms for claiming tax credit have to be filed before the due date for filing return of income under section 139(1) of the Act. Further, reference was drawn to notification no. 100/2022 dated 18/08/2022 whereby the due date for filing and claiming foreign tax credit

Associated Soapstone Distributing Co Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -2, Jaipur

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

ITA 243/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Mar 2024AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 36(1)(ii)Section 37Section 43B

AAPA AY SAH, TIGRATAS, GAGR IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR stridor -Eaee VAAICSISHAMGAS, CRIT WaT

Trimbak Konher Patil, Hubblli vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Hubli

ITA 6/BANG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Mar 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

paid within the due dates specified under the respective Acts, the same has been paid within the due date specified under section 139(1) of the Act. The CIT(A), however, rejected the contentions of the assessee. The CIT(A) took note of the retrospective amendment brought into section

Rajendra Aggarwal, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 107/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri M. Balaganesh[Assessment Year: 2017-18]

Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54(2)Section 54F

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘F’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI M

Acil Navasar Jan Rural Development Foundation, Mumbai vs. ITO (Exem) Ward1(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statisti...

ITA 3743/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Ms. Priti Kamble (Accountant)For Respondent: Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr. DR
Section 11(1)(a)Section 12A

which is within the that the assessee filed its return of income on 28.11.2014 which is within the due date as per section 139(1) due date as per section 139(1) i.e. 30.11.2014. However, the audit report as i.e. 30.11.2014. However, the audit report as Form 10 was submitted