“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)

DCIT, Central Cicle-1, Jodhpur vs. Sanjay Singhal, Mount Abu

In the result, the appeals of assessee bearing ITA Nos

ITA 101/JODH/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur21 Dec 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 132Section 139Section 153ASection 250(6)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 68Section 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH,JODHPUR. BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE

Laxmi Kant Mishra, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 35(5), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 964/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Dec 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: the end of the relevant

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 148Section 271F

read in isolation. This section has to be read along with main provisions for filing of return of income which is governed by sections 139(1), 139(4), 139(5) and 142(1) of the Act. Section 142(1) of the Act enables the Assessing Officer to issue notice

Laxmi Kant Mishra, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 35(5), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 963/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Dec 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: the end of the relevant

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 148Section 271F

Nilanjan Chaudhari, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Circle- 3, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2746/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Dec 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: BEFORE, SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54E

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘E’: NEW DELHI BEFORE, SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER And SHRI ANUBHAV

Malik Network & Computer P.Ltd, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-16(2), New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 7565/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Dec 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Us, The Ground No.2 Raised By The Assessee Is Challenging The Validity Of Assumption Of Jurisdiction U/S 153C Of The Act. We Deem It Fit To Address This Preliminary Legal Ground First.

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 153C

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

Malik Network & Computer P.Ltd, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-16(2), New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 7564/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Us, The Ground No.2 Raised By The Assessee Is Challenging The Validity Of Assumption Of Jurisdiction U/S 153C Of The Act. We Deem It Fit To Address This Preliminary Legal Ground First.

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 153C

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

Malik Network & Computer P.Ltd, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-16(2), New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 7563/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Dec 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Us, The Ground No.2 Raised By The Assessee Is Challenging The Validity Of Assumption Of Jurisdiction U/S 153C Of The Act. We Deem It Fit To Address This Preliminary Legal Ground First.

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 153C

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

Malik Network & Computer P.Ltd, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-16(2), New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 7562/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Dec 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Us, The Ground No.2 Raised By The Assessee Is Challenging The Validity Of Assumption Of Jurisdiction U/S 153C Of The Act. We Deem It Fit To Address This Preliminary Legal Ground First.

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 153C

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

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S Apex Recycling Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 4736/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Dec 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 245

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘A’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT, AND SHRI N.K

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Surat vs. M/S Surat Life Care Pvt. Ltd., Surat

ITA 160/SRT/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Dec 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.160/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Physical Hearing) The Acit, Vs. M/S. Surat Life Care Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle – 3, Unique Hospital, Opp. Kiran Motor, Surat Nr. Sosyo Circle Lane, Surat - 395002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aarcs8396M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By 14/12/2023 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 21/12/2023

Section 115BSection 131Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 35ASection 68

held that in the assessee's case, as the assessee has filed the original return in time as per the provisions of Section 139(1) of the Act, the revised return filed as per the provisions of Section 139(5) of the Act, claiming the deduction u/s 35AD ... case, as the assessee has filed the original 160/SRT/2023/AY.2013-14 M/s Surat Life Care Pvt. Ltd. return in time as per the provisions of section 139(1) of the Act, the revised return filed as per the provisions of section 139(5) of the Act, claiming the deduction u/s 35AD

Atman Rajnikant Bhesdadiya L/R. Late Shri Rajnikant Lavjibhai Bhedadiya, Rajkot vs. The DCIT, Central Circle-1, Rajkot

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 112/RJT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot20 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

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

Section 132Section 271ASection 274Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT (Conducted Through Virtual Court) Before: Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member And

Global Enterprises, Mumbai vs. Previous-ITO-20(1)(5), Present-Ward 20(1)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No. 2 & 3 raised by the Appellant are dismissed as being infructuous

ITA 2939/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Dec 2023AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Manish J. ShethFor Respondent: Shri Prashant Mahajan

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 36(1)(iii)

Appellant to the subsequent assessment year as the return for Assessment Year 2014-15 was filed after the period specified under Section 139(1) of the Act. Reliance was placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance Petroproducts

Vijay Moru Mhatre, Panvel vs. Income Tax Department, Thane

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2834/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Dec 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Amarjit Singhvijay Moru Mhatre, Vs. Acit, Cc-1 Plot No. 08, 1St Floor 6Th Floor Room No. 10, Mcch Society, Panvel Road No. 16-Z, Ashar It Maharashtra – 410206 Park, Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane (W) स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aehpm8104Q Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Khushiram Jadhawani Respondent By : Usha Gaikwad Date Of Hearing 13.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 19.12.2023

For Appellant: Khushiram JadhawaniFor Respondent: Usha Gaikwad

Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

P a g e | 1 Vijay Moru Mhatre Vs. ACIT,CC-1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH

M/S. Jaika Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., Nagpur vs. Deputy Commiissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 267/NAG/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur19 Dec 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.193/Nag/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Jaika Automobiles & Vs. Acit, Circle-2, Nagpur. Finance Pvt. Ltd., Jaika Building, Commercial Road, Civil Lines, Nagpur- 440001. Pan : Aaacj3178K Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.267/Nag/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Jaika Automobiles Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Cpc, Bangalore. Ltd., Jaika Building, Commercial Road, Civil Lines, Nagpur- 440001. Pan : Aaacj4462A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri K. P. Dewani Revenue By : Shri Vijay Kumar Subrahmanyan Date Of Hearing : 18.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.12.2023 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Nfac’) Dated 15.03.2022 & 23.12.2021 For The Assessment Years 2017-18 & 2018-19 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Above Captioned Appeals Of The Assessee, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.267/Nag/2022 For The Assessment Year 2018-19 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: Shri K. P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Subrahmanyan

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

ESIC etc within due date prescribed under respective Statutes, but paid before due date for filing Return of Income under the provisions of section 139(1) of the Act. On appeal before the NFAC, the NFAC confirmed the said disallowance. 5. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before ... case of the assessee before the authorities below has been that such payments before the due date as per section 139(1) of the Act amounts to sufficient compliance of the provisions in terms of section 43B of the Act, not calling for any disallowance. Per contra, the Department

M/S. Jaika Automobiles and Finance Pvt. Ltd., Nagpur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Nagpur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 193/NAG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur19 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri K. P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Subrahmanyan

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

Telecrats India Private Limited, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Jaipur

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 605/JPR/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Dec 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anup Singh, Addl.CIT

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

1 TELECRATS INDIA PVT LTD. VS ITO, WARD 1(1), JAIPUR आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME

Telecrats India Private Limited, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Jaipur

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 574/JPR/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Dec 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anup Singh, Addl.CIT

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

1 TELECRATS INDIA PVT LTD. VS ITO, WARD 1(1), JAIPUR आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME

Neptunus Power Plant Services Private Limited, Navi Mumbai vs. ADIT, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 2796/MUM/2023[AY 2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Dec 2023

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2796/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2020-21) Neptunus Power Plant बिधम/ Adit, Cpc Services Pvt. Ltd Bangalore. Vs. A-554, Ttc Industrial Area, Midc Navi Mumbai, Mahape, Thane-400710. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacn9274A (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Kartik Natarajan Revenue By: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 11/12/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 18/12/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/(Nfac), Delhi Dated 14.06.2023 For The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: -

For Appellant: Shri Kartik NatarajanFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha (Sr

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 3

avail the benefit, such companies will have to exercise the option in the prescribed manner on or before the due date specified under section 139(1) for furnishing the return of income for any previous year relevant to the assessment year commencing on or after 1st day of April

Gajesingh, Jodhpur vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Jodhpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 64/JODH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur18 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.64/Jodh/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 44A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR. BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE

Sm Workforce Private Limited, Bhiwadi vs. ITO, Ward, Bhiwadi

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 426/JPR/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Dec 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehra (Addl.CIT)

Section 1Section 139(1)Section 143Section 154Section 2Section 3Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 44A

1. Regarding the disallowance of Rs. 6,98,230/- made by the Id. ADIT, CPC, Bangaluru, while processing the return under section 139(1), on the basis of column 20(b) of the Audit Report under section 44AB in Form No. 3CB. The Id. ADIT has made the addition disallowing