“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)

Springer Verlag Gmbh vs. DDIT, Circle-2(2)

ITA 644/DEL/2005[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jan 2024AY 2000-2001

Bench: G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice-

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjeev Chaudhary, ARFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 44C

clients in India. For the assessment years 1999-2000 to 2001-02, the assessee did not file any return of income under section 139(1) of the Act. A survey under section 133A of the Act was conducted at the premises of the LO on 23.10.2002. In course of survey ... fact on record that in the assessment years under dispute, the assessee had not filed any return of income voluntarily under section 139(1) of the Act. It is also a fact that a survey action under section 133A of the Act was carried out at the premises

Springer Verlag Gmbh vs. DDIT, Circle-2(2)

ITA 643/DEL/2005[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jan 2024AY 1999-2000

Bench: G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice-

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjeev Chaudhary, ARFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 44C

Gyandeep Charitable Trust, Ahmedabad vs. The ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru Now the ITO, Ward-3(3)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, assessee's appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 555/AHD/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Jan 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 555/Ahd/2023 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: 2021-2022 Gyandeep Charitable Trust, A.D.I.T, A/204, Ashutosh Apt., Vs. Cpc, B/H. St. Xaviers School, Bengaluru, Naranpura, Now Ahmedabad-380013. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(1), Pan: Aactg0352M Ahmedabad.

For Appellant: Shri S.N Divatia, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr.D.R

Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)(b)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)

आयकरअपीलीयअधिकरण, अहमदाबादनयायपीी IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘’ SMC’’ BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No

Narmada Concast Private Limited, Bhavnagar vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 33/AHD/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 148

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “B” BENCH Before: Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member And Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

Konti Infrapower & Multiventures Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 6 (1) (2), Mumbai

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

ITA 3172/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jan 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyalkonti Infrapower & Vs. Ito – 6(1)(2), Multiventures Pvt Ltd 5Th Floor, 18Th Floor, A Wing Aayakar Bhavan, Marathon Futurex, N.M M.K.Road, Joshi Marg, Lowerparel, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400013. Pan/Gir No. : Aaccc0699J Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri.Jayesh Chobisa.Ar Respondent By : Shi.P.D. Chougule. Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 27.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 01.01.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)/Cit(A), Delhi Passed U/Sec 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri.Jayesh Chobisa.ARFor Respondent: Shi.P.D. Chougule. Sr.DR

Section 115BSection 115JSection 119(2)(b)

conditions are satisfied: i) The return of income for relevant assessment year has been filed on or before the due date specified under section 139(1) of the Act; Konti Infrapower & Multiventures Pvt Ltd, Mumbai ii) The assessee company has opted for taxation u/s 115BAA of the Act in item ... conditions are satisfied: (1) The return of income for relevant assessment year has been filed on or before the due date specified under section 139(1) of the Act; (ii) The assessee company has opted for taxation u/s 115BAA of the Act in item (e) of "Filing Status" in "Part

Indira Giri, Jaipur vs. Assessing Officer, Income Tax Deparment Jaipur

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 511/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: The Due Date Of Furnishing Itr, Therefore Deposit In Capital Gain Account For Compliance U/S 54(2) Was Impossible On The Part Of The Assessee.

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Manik (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Anup Singh (Addl.CIT) a

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54(2)Section 54F

ground that he did not deposit the said amount in the Capital Gains Account Scheme before the due date prescribed under Section 139(1) of the IT Act?” The said question has been answered by the Hon’ble Court in the following words: - “As is clear from Sub Section ... transfer of old flat nor had deposited unutilized capital gain in capital gain account scheme before due date of filing of return under section 139(1) - Whether booking of flat with a builder was a case of construction and not purchase of residential flat and, therefore, time period applicable would

Madhu Souharda Pathina Sahakari Niyamitha, Madhugiri vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Tumkur

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 969/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Chalapathy, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 56Section 80A(5)Section 80P

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 ... furnish a return of his income for such assessment year on or before the due date specified in section 139(1) of the IT Act. In other words, after 1-4-2018, even if the assessee makes his claim for deduction under section 80P in a return filed within time

Kuruhinasetty Souharda Credit Cooperative Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-5(2)(1), Banglore

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

ITA 909/BANG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Kuruhinasetty Souharda Credit Vs. Ito, Co-Operative Ltd., Ward – 5(2)(1), No.5, Sakamma Bhavana, Bengaluru. Vishveshwarapura, Bengaluru – 560 004. Pan : Aabak 4862 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Tarun Kothari, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Subramanian S, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 02.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.01.2024

For Appellant: Shri. Tarun Kothari, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80ASection 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)

under section 80P was denied for the reason that assessee had not filed its return of income within the due date specified under section 139(1) of the Act (as mandated under section 80AC of the Act w.e.f. 01.04.2018). 4. Aggrieved by assessment completed, assessee preferred appeal before ... rival submissions and perused the material on record. The due date for filing the return of income for Assessment Year 2018-19 under section 139(1) of the Act was 30.09.2018. In the instant case, assessee had filed the return of income under section 139

Ty Spl85Z Suthamalli Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society Limited, Ariyalur vs. CIT(A), Delhi

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

ITA 909/CHNY/2023[AY 2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Jan 2024

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh

For Appellant: Shri. G. Reddi Prakash, FCAFor Respondent: Shri G. Suresh, IRS, JCIT

Section 119Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

income. This circular further instructs that such belated returns be treated as though they were furnished within the due date specified under section 139(1) of the Act. The delay in our case was directly attributable to the delayed completion of the audit of our accounts as mandated

Rameshchandra Bhagwatiprasad Bagadia, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward.32(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 110/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: The Issue Of Notice U/S.148. The Relevant Grounds Raised By The Assessee Reads As Under:-

Section 139(1)Section 140ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 151

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, „D„ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Income Tax Office, Ward-4(4), Nagpur vs. M/S. Nagpur Zilla Parishad Primary Shikshak Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, Nagpur

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 62/NAG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur29 Dec 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri Kailash G. Kanojiya, CIT-DR

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR [THROUGH VIRTUAL HEARING AT PUNE] BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL

Kunderu Primary Agricultural Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd, Kunderu vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(4), Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 219/VIZ/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam29 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.219/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) The Kunderu Primary Agricultural Co- Vs. Income Tax Officer Operative Credit Society Ltd. Ward-2(4) D.No.3068, Kunderu, Vijayawada Kankipadu Mandal Krishna Dist [Pan : Aabat0643G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Ms.Aparna Villuri, DR

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144(1)(b)Section 80ASection 80PSection 80P(2)

आयकरअपीलीयअधिकरण, धिशाखापटणम “SMC” पीठ, धिशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM “SMC” BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM श्री दुव्वूरु आर एल रेड्डी

Adobe Systems Software Ireland Ltd, Ireland vs. ACIT, Circle 1(1)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

Appeal is allowed in terms indicate above

ITA 804/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Dec 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2016-17] Adobe Systems Software Ireland Vs Acit, Ltd., 406, Riverwalk, Citywest Circle-1(1)(1), Business Campus, Saggart, International Dublin 24, Ireland Taxation, Pan-Aahca7203M New Delhi. Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Ravi Sharma, Adv. & Ms. Shruti Khimta, Ar Respondent By Shri Vizay B.Vasanta, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 12.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22.12.2023 Order Per Kul Bharat, Jm : The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld.Acit, Circle-International Taxation 1(1)(1), Delhi Dated 24.01.2023 For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

year under consideration. 10. It is humbly submitted that the Assessee had furnished its return of income under the provisions of section 139(1) of the Act on October 14, 2016. However, the Ld. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Centralized Processing Center, Bangalore had treated the return of income filed ... under consideration. It is humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Bench may kindly direct the Ld. AO to consider the return furnished under section 139(1) of the Act as valid.” 15. It is stated that the interest was levied treating the return of income as invalid however

Ghibellines Security Solutions Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT (OSD), New Delhi

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

ITA 1399/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Dec 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Due Date Of Filling Of Return Of Income U/S 139(1) Of It Act & Therefore Are Allowable Under Law. 2. Without Prejudice To Above, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred Both On Facts & In Law In Upholding The Adjustments As Per The Intimation U/S 143(1) Ignoring The Proposition Of Law That Notwithstanding The Disallowance Made U/S 36(1)(Va), Such Expenditure Is Eligible For Deduction U/S 37(1) Of It Act. 3. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Delete, Modify/ Amend The Above Grounds Of Appeal With The Permission Of The Hon’Ble Appellate Authority.”

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’: NEW DELHI BEFORE, SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI YOGESH

The Vijayawada Electricity Employees Co Operative Credit Society Limited, Vijayawada vs. Income Tax Office Ward 2(1), Vijayawada

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

ITA 273/VIZ/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam22 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.273/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) The Vijayawada Electricity Employees Vs. Income Tax Officer Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd. Ward-2 (1) Office Of The Assistant Engineer Vijayawada Operation, Kg Market Section Beside Vmc Building Apcpdcl, Vijayawada [Pan : Aaeat3589Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P.Srinivasa Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Shri Madhkar Aves, Sr.AR

Section 139(11)Section 142Section 142(1)Section 142(2)Section 144Section 69ASection 80P

आयकरअपीलीयअधिकरण, धिशाखापटणम पीठ, धिशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM श्री दुव्वूरु आर एल रेड्डी, न्याधयक सदस्य