← 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)

Konark Infrastructure (Water Supply - Umc) (J/V), Ulhasnagar vs. DCIT Central Circle -4, Thane

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is allowed, for AYs

ITA 3021/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 3021, 3022, 3023 & 3024/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2017-18) Konark Infrastructure बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle – 4 (Water Supply-Umc) (J/V) 6Th Floor, Ashar It Park, Vs. 1St Floor, Sapna Talkies, 16Z, Waghle Estate, Konark Plaza, Near Sapna Thane (W) Garden, Ulhasnagar 42100. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaak9702G (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 3058, 3061, 3060 & 3059/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2017-18) Dcit, Central Circle – 4 बिधम/ Konark Infrastructure 6Th Floor, Ashar It Park, (Water Supply-Umc) Vs. 16Z, Waghle Estate, Thane (J/V) (W) 1St Floor, Sapna Talkies, Konark Plaza, Near Sapna Garden, Ulhasnagar 42100. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaak9702G (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vijay Mehta Revenue By: Shri Biswanant Das, Cit Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 06 & 14/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 27/02/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench All These Appeals Preferred By The Revenue & The Assessee Are Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-11, Pune, All Dated 30-06- 2023 For Ays 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & Ay 2017-18. Since The Issues Involved Are Common, All The Appeals Have Been Heard Together. Both The Parties Also Raised Similar Arguments On These A.Ys. 2013-14 To 2015-16 Konark Infrastructure., Issues. Accordingly, We Dispose Off All These Appeals By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Biswanant Das, CIT DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 245C(1)Section 245D(4)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI BR BASKARAN, AM & SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM आयकर

Mobase India Pvt. Ltd., Uttar Pradesh vs. ACIT, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 243/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumara.Y. : 2016-17 Mobase India Pvt. Ltd., Vs The Acit, 1C, Front Part Of Front Building, National E-Assessment Centre, Udyog Vihar, Ecotech-Ii, Greater New Delhi. Noida 201306, Up (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaecd 8832 G Assessee By : Sh. Rajesh Dua, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 06.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.02.2024

For Appellant: Sh. Rajesh Dua, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144CSection 2Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43(6)Section 43B

provisions of section 43B are applicable to such payment as the payment has been deposited before filing of Income Tax Return as per section 139(1) of the Act. 5.2 The Assessing Officer erred in disallowing the payment of Provident Fund and ESI without considering that out of the total

Grid Controller of India (Formerly Known As Power System Operation Corporation Ltd), Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-19(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2326/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Sh. Anubhav Sharmagrid Controller Of India Vs. Dcit (Formerly Known As Power System Circle-19(1), Operation Corporation Ltd) Delhi. B-9, 1St Floor, Qutab Institutional Area, Katwaria Sarai, Hauz Khas, South Delhi, New Delhi Pan No. Aafcp2086B (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 50

Extrusions Ltd. [2009] 185 Taxman 426 (SC) the employee share deposited before the due date of filing of the return of income under section 139(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is to be allowed as deduction. Hence the disallowance made is not correct. 2.2 As per assessee profit

Shivam Industries, Delhi vs. ACIT, CC-6, Delhi

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

ITA 1612/DEL/2021[2017-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2024AY 2017-19
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘H’: NEW DELHI BEFORE, SHRI DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI

Vijaykumar Mansukhlal Mehta, Mumbai vs. ITO 19 (3) (5), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3506/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyalvijay Kumar Mansukhlal Mehta, 156, Cooper Compound, T. P. Street, Kumbhar Wada, 6Th Lane, Mumbai-400 004 Pan: Agapm3179N ..... Appellant Vs. Ito 19(3) (5) Piramal Chamber, Mumbai ..... Respondent & Ito 19(3) (5) Piramal Chamber, Mumbai ...... Appellant Vs.

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Usha Gaikwad, Ld. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 148Section 234ASection 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN

Capacite Infraprojects Limited, Mumbai, Maharashtra vs. DCIT Central Circle 1(2), Mumbau

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3495/MUM/2023[AY 2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2024

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI AMARJIT SINGH (Accountant Member)

Section 115JSection 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 148ASection 153ASection 37(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘C ‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Lic Mutual Fund Asset Management Limited, Opp Churchgate Station vs. CIT(A), North Block

In the result, ground No.3 of appeal is allowed

ITA 2824/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.2824/मुं/2023 (िन.व. 2013-14) Lic Mutual Fund Asset Management Ltd. 4Th Floor, Industrial Assurance Building, Charchgate, Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aaacj-1166-H ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Cit(A), North Block, North Block, New Delhi 110 001. ....."ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri Vijay Mehta "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr.A.R सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 11/12/2023 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 26/02/2024 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short ‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 22/06/2023, For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Assessee In Appeal Has Raised Three Grounds. The Gist Of Issues Raised In Appeal By The Assessee Is As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr.A.R
Section 115JSection 139(5)Section 139(9)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण मुंबई पीठ “ए ”,मुंबई "ी िवकास अव"थी,"ाियक सद" एवं "ी एस. "रफौर रहमान, लेखाकार सद" के सम

Supermax Personal Care P. Ltd., Thane vs. Dy CIT -3(4), Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed in above terms

ITA 687/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Subhash Gupta & Shri AjinkyaFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, Ld. DR
Section 250Section 32(1)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 92C

brought forward unabsorbed depreciation to the extent of INR 4, 04, 40,744/-, as claimed in the return of income filed under section 139(1) of the Act, while computing the total income of the Appellant. Non-grant of credit of self-assessment tax paid

Sh. Kartik Budhiraja, Fazilka vs. DCIT, CC-3, Ludhiana

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 528/CHANDI/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Feb 2024AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, C.A and Shri Aditya Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR
Section 127Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143Section 153ASection 250(6)

cash loan amounting to Rs. 1,95,000/- to Shri Surinder Kumar and the assessee has not filed his return of income under section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the A.Y. 2015-16. The show cause notice under section 142(1) was issued to the assessee

Sh. Kartik Budhiraja, Fazilka vs. DCIT, CC-3, Ludhiana

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 527/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, C.A and Shri Aditya Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR
Section 127Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143Section 153ASection 250(6)

cash loan amounting to Rs. 1,95,000/- to Shri Surinder Kumar and the assessee has not filed his return of income under section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the A.Y. 2015-16. The show cause notice under section 142(1) was issued to the assessee

Sh. Kartik Budhiraja, Fazilka vs. DCIT, CC-3, Ludhiana

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 526/CHANDI/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, C.A and Shri Aditya Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR
Section 127Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143Section 153ASection 250(6)

cash loan amounting to Rs. 1,95,000/- to Shri Surinder Kumar and the assessee has not filed his return of income under section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the A.Y. 2015-16. The show cause notice under section 142(1) was issued to the assessee

Sanil Sethu Madhavan, Pune vs. CIT A, Pune

The appeal is ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE

ITA 1051/PUN/2023[18-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Feb 2024

Bench: Hon’Ble Partha Sarathi Choudhury & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1051/Pun/2023 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Sanil Sethu Madhavan 56/4/1, Kondhwa Khurd Lane-12, Nr Ravi Apts, Pune-411048 Pan : Aucpm6579Q . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिधम / V/S. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cpc, Bengaluru . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent द्वधरध / Appearances Assessee By : None For The Assessee Revenue By : Mr Gaurav Singh ‘Ld. Dr’] सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 23/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 23/02/2024 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; This Appeal Is Filed U/S 253(1)(A) Of The Income Tax Act [‘The Act’] By The Assessee Challenging The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Nfac’] Din & Order Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1054731019(1) Dt. 31/07/2023 Passed U/S 250 Of The Act.

For Appellant: None for the AssesseeFor Respondent: Mr Gaurav Singh ‘Ld. DR’]
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 24Section 250Section 250(6)Section 253(1)(a)

॥ आयकर अपीलीय न्यायाधिकरण, पुणे ‘एस.एम.स .’ न्यायपीठ, पुणे में ॥ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PUNE ‘SMC’ BENCH, PUNE

Pramod Tarade, Raigad vs. CIT ( NFAC ), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 898/PUN/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Feb 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.898/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2021-22 Pramod Tarade, The Commissioner Of A-2, Sai Ameya Chs, Plot V Income Tax,[Nfac]. No.28, Sector-12, Kharghar, S Panvel, Raigad – 410210. Maharashtra. Pan: Aevpt9870L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Tarun G – Ar Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 15/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 22/02/2024 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(Appeal)[Nfac], Delhi Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2021-22 Passed On 24.06.2023 Emanating From Order Under Section 154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 29.12.2022. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under : “1. The Order Of The Cit(A) Nfac, Dt. 24-06-2023 For The A.Y. 2021 -22 Is Contrary To Law & Facts & In The Circumstances Of Pramod Tarade [A]

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 90

case : 2. In this case, assessee filed return of income for A.Y.2021-22 within the extended due date of 31.12.2021 prescribed under section 139(1) of the Act. Assessee filed return of income on 25.11.2021. Assessee had claimed foreign tax credit of Rs.1,02,316/- under section ... Income Tax 3 Pramod Tarade [A] Rules was not filed along with return of income within the due date mentioned under section 139(1) of the Act. The return of income was processed under section 143(1) on 22.03.2022. Assessee was denied credit for foreign tax credit on the ground

Kamakshi Jute Industries Ltd., Kolkata vs. Dcic, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, ITA No. 1073/KOL/2023 is dismissed

ITA 1073/KOL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Feb 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Sri Anikesh Banerjee

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

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण कोलकाता 'एसएमसी' पीठ, कोलकाता में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘SMC’ BENCH, KOLKATA श्री राजेश

Ramkunwar Patidar, Bhopal vs. The ITO 2 (4), Bhopal

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 208/IND/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Feb 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2009-10 Shri Ramkunwar Patidar, Income-Tax Officer, Village Salliya, 2(4), बनाम/ Post Bawadia Kalan, Bhopal Vs. Bhopal (Appellant/Assessee) (Respondent/Revenue) Pan: Blxpp4909C Assessee By Shri S.S.Solanki, Ca & Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 22.02.2024

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 54F

amount in Capital Gain Deposit Scheme and that the due date of filing the return of income tax is not as specified in Section 139(1) but as specified in Section 139(4) of the Act. The Assessing Officer declined the claim of the assessee and returned finding that ... Azad, her father-in-law on 2.1.2007 for a consideration of Rs. 95 lacs. The due date of filing of return as per Section 139(1) of the Act was 31.7.2006, but the assessee filed her return on 28.3.2007 and that extended due date of filing of return

M/S Super Emirates Exports, Mumbai vs. ITO -Ward 28(3)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 1313/MUM/2023[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Feb 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Ms.Dinkle Hariya, Ld. Adv a/w Simoni Chouhan, Ld. CAFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Parwani –
Section 10Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 40

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL

Arvinder Paul Jit Singh Gill, Chandigarh vs. ITO, Ward 2(1), Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 325/CHANDI/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Feb 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

For Appellant: Shri Nalin Nohria & Shri B.K.Nohria,CAsFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ, च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, ‘A’, CHANDIGARH

Pratibhaben Anandbhai Pandya, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(3)(4), Ahmedabad

ITA 809/AHD/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.809/Ahd/2023 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: 2013-2014 Pratibhaben Anandbhai Pandya, Income Tax Officer, 71, Serendeep Mansions, Vs. Ward-3(3)(4), Near Hanumanji Mandir, Ahmedabad. Vip Road, Ghuma-Shela, Ahmedabad-380058. Pan: Apxpp5405Q

For Appellant: Shri S.N Divatia, with Shri Samir Vora, ARsFor Respondent: Shri B.P Makwana, Sr.DR
Section 139(1)Section 148Section 54Section 54E

आयकरअपीलीयअधिकरण, अहमदाबादनयायपीी IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘’ SMC’’ BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE Ms SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER And SHRI WASEEM

Maheshbhai Prabhudas Gandhi, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 767/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 759 To 762 & 764 To 767/Ahd/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 To 2016-17)

For Appellant: Shri Prakash D. Shah & Shri SaiyamFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Katiar, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 144B(8)Section 151Section 271(1)(b)

fact remains that the impugned penalty under Section 271F of the Act was levied for non-filing of the return of income under Section 139(1) of the Act by the assessee; the income for the year under Section was determined under Section 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act vide ... income of the assesse for the year under consideration was below the taxable limit, there was no requirement to file return under Section 139(1) of the Act. Relevant to note that the estimated income of the assessee is ITA Nos. 759 to 762 & 764 to 767/Ahd/2023 (Maheshbhai Prabhudas Gandhi

Maheshbhai Prabhudas Gandhi, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 766/AHD/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 759 To 762 & 764 To 767/Ahd/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 To 2016-17)

For Appellant: Shri Prakash D. Shah & Shri SaiyamFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Katiar, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 144B(8)Section 151Section 271(1)(b)

fact remains that the impugned penalty under Section 271F of the Act was levied for non-filing of the return of income under Section 139(1) of the Act by the assessee; the income for the year under Section was determined under Section 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act vide ... income of the assesse for the year under consideration was below the taxable limit, there was no requirement to file return under Section 139(1) of the Act. Relevant to note that the estimated income of the assessee is ITA Nos. 759 to 762 & 764 to 767/Ahd/2023 (Maheshbhai Prabhudas Gandhi