“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)

Sumit Sinha, Thane vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 2578/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Nov 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry (Jm)

Section 139(1)Section 154Section 234BSection 234CSection 90

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Mumbai “G” Bench, Mumbai. Before Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry (JM

Hitesh Golchha, Raipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Raipur

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed, in terms of our observations herein above

ITA 104/RPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur02 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.101, 102, 103 & 104/Rpr/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18) V. Hitesh Golchha Acit, Prop. Of Mouli Investment, Central Circle-1 Jeevan Ganga, Near Dani Bada, Raipur Budha Para, Raipur – 492 001 Chhattisgarh [Pan: Agjpg 7698 F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri B. Subramanyam, C.A. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri S. K. Meena, Cit-D.R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 13.09.2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 02.11.2023

For Appellant: Shri B. Subramanyam, C.AFor Respondent: Shri S. K. Meena, CIT-D.R

Section 153ASection 263Section 43C

Income Tax Act, 1961 for the said assessment years except for AY 2017-18 for which e- return was filed u/s section 139(1) of the Act. A combined order was passed by the Ld. AO u/s 153A r.w.s

Hitesh Golchha, Raipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Raipur

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed, in terms of our observations herein above

ITA 103/RPR/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur02 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri B. Subramanyam, C.AFor Respondent: Shri S. K. Meena, CIT-D.R

Section 153ASection 263Section 43C

Income Tax Act, 1961 for the said assessment years except for AY 2017-18 for which e- return was filed u/s section 139(1) of the Act. A combined order was passed by the Ld. AO u/s 153A r.w.s

Hitesh Golchha, Raipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Raipur

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed, in terms of our observations herein above

ITA 102/RPR/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur02 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri B. Subramanyam, C.AFor Respondent: Shri S. K. Meena, CIT-D.R

Section 153ASection 263Section 43C

Income Tax Act, 1961 for the said assessment years except for AY 2017-18 for which e- return was filed u/s section 139(1) of the Act. A combined order was passed by the Ld. AO u/s 153A r.w.s

Hitesh Golchha, Raipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Raipur

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed, in terms of our observations herein above

ITA 101/RPR/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur02 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri B. Subramanyam, C.AFor Respondent: Shri S. K. Meena, CIT-D.R

Section 153ASection 263Section 43C

Income Tax Act, 1961 for the said assessment years except for AY 2017-18 for which e- return was filed u/s section 139(1) of the Act. A combined order was passed by the Ld. AO u/s 153A r.w.s

Mr. Sujeev Sanjeev Kharwadkar, Maharashtra vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-31(3), Bandra Kurla Complex

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

ITA 2478/MUM/2023[AY 2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Nov 2023

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry (Jm)

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 139(5)

pertinent to note 2 Sujeev Sanjeev Kharwadkar that this return of income has been filed beyond the due date prescribed under section 139(1) of the Act, meaning thereby, it was filed under section 139(4) of the Act as belated return of income. 3. Subsequently, the assessee filed ... income under section 139(5) of the Act, only if he had filed original return of income within the date prescribed under section 139(1) of the Act. Since the assessee has not filed return of income under section 139(1), the Assessing Officer held that the revised return

Jamuna Apartments Co-Operative Housing Society Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru

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

ITA 2465/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Nov 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalejamuna Apartments Co- Vs. Dcit, Cpc, Operativehousingsocietyltd, Bengaluru-560500. 68, Opp. Shoppers Stop, Karnataka. S.V. Road, Andheri (West), Mumbai -400058. Pan/Gir No. : Aaaaj1509L Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri.Yogesh A.Thar, &For Respondent: Shri G.J. Ninawe.Sr.DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 234ASection 234FSection 80Section 80P

audited under this Act or under any other law for the time being in force, as per Explanation-2 (a)(ii) of section 139(1) of the Act, the due date for filling of ITR was 30th September however the said due date of 30th September, has subsequently been substituted

Moreshwar Krushna Baria, Virar vs. ACIT, Central Circle 3, Thane

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2469/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271A

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

Income Tax Officer-12(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Ankita Reality and Development Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue as well as CO of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2212/MUM/2023[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2023AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2212/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Ito-12(1)(1) बिधम/ Ankita Reality & Room No.129 1St Floor, Development Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. H. Cts-40-44, Sahara India Road, Mumbai-400020. Points, Sv Road, Goregaon West, Mumbai- 400104. Cross Objection No. 106/Mum/2023 Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.2212/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Ankita Reality & बिधम/ Ito-12(1)(1) Room No.129 1St Floor, Development Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cts-40-44, Sahara India Aayakar Bhavan, M. H. Points, Sv Road, Goregaon Road, Mumbai-400020. West, Mumbai-400104. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaeca4513D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Siddharth Srivastave/Ms. Ekta Shah Revenue By: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 17/10/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Revenue & The Cross- Objection (Co) Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 19.04.2023 For The Ay 2015-16. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Revenue Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Deleting The Penalty Levied U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) & Pointed Out That Assessee Had Not 2 Co. No.106/M/23 A.Y. 2015-16 Ankita Reality & Development Pvt. Ltd. Filed The Return Of Income U/S 139(1) Of The Act. & The Cross- Objection (Co) Has Been Filed By The Assessee, Supporting The Action Of The Ld Cit(A), As Well As Has Raised Certain Legal Issues.

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Srivastave/Ms. EktaFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha (Sr. AR)

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 147Section 148Section 194CSection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

214/without appreciating the fact that the assessee failed to furnish its return of income on or before due date as per provisions of section 139(1) and also on or before the extended period as per provisions of section 139(1), i.e. 31.03.2017.” 2. ‘Whether on the facts

Usman Gani Haroon Bara, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-30(1)(1), Old Charge Holder ITO, Wrd-17(3)(5), Mumbai

ITA 1982/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Usman Gani Haroon Income Tax Officer, Bara, Ward – 30(1)(1)-Current Ground Floor, Charge Holder, 218 Kambekar Street, Old Charge Ito Vs. Masjid West, Wd.17(3)(5), Mumbai – 400 003 Kautilya Bhavan, Pan: Aagpb9052M Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai400 051 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. Goyal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Singh, D.R

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 40A(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH

Atc Logistical Solutions Private Limited, Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Amritsar

In the result, appeal of the assessee ITA No

ITA 241/ASR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar31 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

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

Section 115JSection 139Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 40ASection 40A(7)

cess or fee even after the closing of the accounting year but before the date of filing of the return of income under section 139(1) of the Act, the assessee(s) would be entitled to deduction under section 43-B on actual payment basis and such deduction would

Cricket Australia, Australia vs. DCIT, Int, Taxation Circle-1(2)(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal is allowed as indicated above

ITA 605/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwalla, Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 194E

Australia and a tax resident of Australia. For the assessment year under dispute, assessee did not file any return of income under Section 139(1) of the Act. However, based on AIR information available in AIMS module of ITBA, the Assessing Officer noticed that assessee has entered into certain financial

Orient Craft Limited, Gurgaon vs. DCIT Central Circle 2, Gurgaon

ITA 1097/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. M. Balaganesh & Sh.Anubhav Sharma

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘E’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SH. M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH.ANUBHAV SHARMA

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Guntur vs. Polisetty Somasundaram Pvt Ltd, Guntur

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection raised by the assessee is disposed off as mentioned herein above

ITA 248/VIZ/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.248/Viz/2022 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2015-16) The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Polisetty Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Somasundaram Pvt Ltd., 3Rd Floor, Rajkamal Complex, D.No. 3-30-17, Sundaram Lakshmipuram Main Road, Colony, Ring Road, Guntur-522 007, Gujjanagundla, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh. Andhra Pradesh-522006. Pan: Aabcp 3168 Q (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) C.O. No. 03/Viz/2023 (In आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.248/Viz/2022) ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2015-16) M/S. Polisetty Somasundaram Pvt Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Ltd., Income Tax, Central Circle-1, D.No. 3-30-17, Sundaram Colony, 3Rd Floor, Rajkamal Complex, Ring Road, Gujjanagundla, Lakshmipuram Main Road, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh-522006. Guntur-522 007, Pan: Aabcp 3168 Q Andhra Pradesh. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Assessee By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Revenue By : Dr Satya Sai Rath, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr Satya Sai Rath, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

आयकर अपील"यअ"धकरण, "वशाखापटणम पीठ, "वशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM "ी दु"वू" आर एल

Premilaba Ramde vs. Inh Jadeja, Rajkotvs.the ITO, Ward-2 (1) (1), Rajkot

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 34/RJT/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot31 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 142Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(b)Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT (Conducted Through Virtual Court) Before: Smt. Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Member And

Abhinav Jhalani, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax(Int. Tax.), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 527/JPR/2023[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Oct 2023AY 2020-2021

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

For Appellant: Ms. Sweta Saboo, CAFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl.CITa

Section 154Section 90

provides that Form 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 said Rule nowhere provides that if the said Form 67 is not filed within the above stated time frame ... have specifically provided that the FTC would be disallowed if the assessee does not file Form 67 within the due date prescribed under section 139(1) of the Act. Thusfiling of Form 67, in my view, is a procedural/directory requirement and is not a mandatory requirement. Therefore, violation of procedural

Mohan Lal Menaria, Udaipur vs. ITO, Ward-2(2), Udaipur

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

ITA 253/JODH/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur30 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 40

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "ायपीठ जोधपुर, जोधपुर म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JODHPUR BENCH : : JODHPUR BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR

M/S. Rasik Priya Resorts Pvt. Ltd., Udaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Udaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 200/JODH/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur30 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.199 & 200/Jodh/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S.Rasik Priya Resorts Pvt. The Deputy Commissioner Ltd., V Of Income Tax, 11, Mangal Complex, S. Central Circle-2, Udaipur. Saifan Choraha, Bedla Road, Udaipur. Pan: Aafcr 5546 N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Assessee By Shri Rakesh Lodha – Ca Revenue By Smt. Alka Rajvanshi Jain – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 10/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30/10/2023

Section 153A

Mr.Mangilal Gurjar as share application money. However, it will not be irrelevant to mention here that in the Return of Income filed under section 139(1) of the Act, these amounts were shown as unsecured loan but, in the returns, filed after search it is shown as share application money

M/S. Rasik Priya Resorts Pvt. Ltd., Udaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Udaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 199/JODH/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur30 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Section 153A

Smt Sunitha Prem Victor, Trivandrum vs. ITO Ward 2(3), Trivandrum

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

ITA 1009/COCH/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dassunita Prem Victor The Income Tax Officer Tc 25/2813 Mathrubhumi Road Ward – 2(3) Vs. Vanchiyoor, Trivandrum 695035 Trivandrum [Pan:Akopv8566C] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Divya Ravindran, Advocate Revenue By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 11.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.10.2023 O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, Am This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 26.10.2022 By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi [Cit(A)],Partly Allowing Her Appeal Contesting Her Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’) Dated 27.12.2016 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Returned Her Income For The Relevant Year On 18.12.2014 At Rs.5,67,250, Claiming Deduction Under Section 54 Of The Act At Rs.91,05,096 In Respect Of Construction Of A Residential House During The Relevant Year Against The Capital Gain Arising To Her On Sale Of 3 Pieces Of Land Sold During March, 2013 To November, 2013. The Claim Was, Admitting Her Mistake Inasmuch As The Capital Asset/S Sold Was Not A Residential House, Requested By The Assessee Vide Letter Dated 29.11.2016 For Being Considered U/S. 54F Of The Act; She Not Owning Any Other Residential House On The Date Of Transfer/S. Earlier, On 25.11.2016, A Revised Statement Of Income Was Filed Claiming Exemption With Reference To The Total

For Appellant: Ms. Divya Ravindran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54F

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountant Member and Shri Manomohan Das, Judicial