← 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)

Dinesh Kumar, Kushalpura Bansa vs. ITO WD 7(3), Jaipur

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

ITA 531/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Anoop BhatiyaFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT)
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 144(1)Section 250Section 68

modify the grounds of appeal. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income under section 139(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 on 10.07.2016 declaring total income of Rs. 2,35,540/-. The case of the assessee was selected for Limited Scrutiny

Wholery Infrastructure Private Limited, Kota, Rajasthan vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Kota, Rajasthan

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

ITA 525/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 139(9)Section 154Section 154(1)(a)Section 44A

आयकरअपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुरन्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR JhlanhixkslkbZ]U;kf;dlnL; ,oaJhjkBksMdeys'kt

Warner Bros. International Television Distribution Inc., Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Internationa Taxation )-4(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 848/MUM/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2023AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Manuj SabharwalFor Respondent: 10.10.2023
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 148Section 250

stating that “as the assessee has not filed its return of income which was required to be filed as 2 per section 139(1) and 115A(5) of the Act thus the assessee ahs concealed its particulars of income as per the section 271(1)(c)”. The CIT(A) erred

Scns Private Ltd, Mumbai vs. CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, disallowance in principle is confirmed, but restricted up to Rs

ITA 2170/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyalscns Private Limited 21 A Chapel Road, Bandra West, Mumbai-400 050 Pan: Aazcs2004A ...... Appellant Vs. Cpc Bengalure Begaluru-560 500 ..... Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Kakoli Ghosh, Ld. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 254(2)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL

Haryana Traders Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 11(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 657/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Oct 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

assessee is that the deduction should be allowed as the payment has been made before the due date of filing of return under section 139(1) of the Act. The claim of the assessee cannot be accepted as the issue now stands settled against the assessee by the judgment

Sidharth Co-Operative Credit & Thrift Society Limited, Durg vs. Income Tax Officer-2(1), Bhilai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 241/RPR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur27 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 241/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Sidharth Co-Operative Credit & Thrift Society Limited 01, Nayapara, Titrudhi, Durg (C.G.)- 490 020 Pan : Aagas2471Q

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

NFAC) has erred in dismissing the appeal of the appellant while upholding the order of the assessing officer taking resort of provisions of sections 139(1) & 80AC in rejecting the application of the appellant under section 154; 4. The appellant reserves the right to add, amend or modify

Sudarshan Chitlangia, Jaipur vs. The Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 507/JPR/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Oct 2023AY 2021-22

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

For Appellant: Shri Abdulkadir Jawadwala, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anup Singh, Addl. CITa
Section 139(1)Section 154Section 224ASection 234Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 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. Thus filing of Form 67, in my view, is a procedural/directory requirement and is not a mandatory requirement. Therefore, violation

Ashwin Remesh Saksena, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-16(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2233/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2023AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri M. M. Golvala/ Shri RajivFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha (Sr. AR)
Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 69C

restore the matter back to the file of the AO submitted that the assessee has not filed the return of income as per Section 139(1) of the Act and was in receipt of Rs.1,71,72,452/- and the TDS deducted was to the tune of Rs.16

Aditya Birla Fashion and Retail Ltd., Mumbai vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of assessee stands dismissed

ITA 1643/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1643/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2020-21) Aditya Birla Fashion & बिधम / Acit, Cpc, Retail Ltd. Piramal Agastya Bengaluru, Vs. Corporate Park, Building A, Karnataka-560500. 4Th & 5Th Floor, L.B.S. Road, Kurla-Mumbai-400070. स्थधयी लेखध सं/.जीआइआर सं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aaecp2371C (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh TharFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Alam, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, AM

Savita Oil Technologies Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT, CC-8(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 1258/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1258/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Savita Oil Technologies बिधम/ Acit, Central Circle-8(4) Ltd. Room No. 659, Aayakar Vs. 66/67, Nariman Bhavan, Bhavan, M. K. Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai- New Marine Line, 400021. Mumbai-400020. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaafs3513J (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Yogesh Thar/Chaitanya Joshi Revenue By: Shri Ram Krishna Kedia (Sr. Ar) Shri Virabhadra Mahanjan (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 04/07/2023/ (20/10/2023) घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/10/2023 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-50, Mumbai Dated 24.02.2023 For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The First Ground Of Appeal Of The Assessee Is As Under: - “1(A) The Appellant Submits That The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) [(“Cit(A)”)] Erred In Not Allowing The Claim Towards Expenditure On Account Of Gratuity Representing Amount Actual Paid To An Approved Gratuity Fund Of Rs.83,69,981/- Representing Employer'S Contribution. (B) The Appellant Submits That Cit(A) Failed To Appreciate That The Aforesaid Amount Of Rs.83,69,981/- Was Paid On Or Before The Due Date For Filing Its Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2017-18 To An Approved Gratuity Fund

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar/Chaitanya JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishna Kedia (Sr. AR)
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(v)Section 40A(7)Section 43BSection 80GSection 80I

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, AM

Saloni Jewellers Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. National E-Assessment Centre-Delhi, Mumbai

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

ITA 1003/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1003/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Saloni Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ National E-Assessment 4Th Floor, 80-80B Patwa Centre-Delhi. Vs. Chawl, Zaveri Bazar, Mumbai-400002. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aagcs5432B (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Rutuja Pawar/Ms Sneha More Revenue By: Dr. Kishore Dhule (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 23/08/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Company Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/(Nfac), Delhi Dated 07.02.2023 For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Pointed Out That The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Has Passed Impugned Order Ex-Parte Qua Assessee. It Is Noted That The Assessee Is A Private Limited Company Engaged In The Business Of Trading & Manufacturing Jewelry Like Silver & Gold Items. The Appellant Filed Original Return Of Income U/S. 139(1) On 26.10.2018 Declaring Total Income As “Nil” For A.Y. 2018-19. The Assessee/Appellant Has Taken Loans From State Bank Of India Whereby The Account Amounting To Rs.129,87,70,130/- (Approximately) Was Classified As Declared As Non-Performing Asset (Npa Category) On 28.07.2015. Therefore, According To Ld. Ar, The Appellant Is A Npa

For Appellant: Ms. Rutuja Pawar/Ms Sneha MoreFor Respondent: Dr. Kishore Dhule (DR)
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 69

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, AM

Dy. Commissioner O Income Tax (Exemption)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Shree Sai Baba Sansthan Trust(Shirdi), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3210/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2023AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri S. Ganesh – Sr. CounselFor Respondent: Dr Kishor Dhule (CIT-DR)
Section 10Section 115BSection 12ASection 143(2)Section 80G

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT

Dy. Commissioner O Income Tax (Exemption)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Shree Sai Baba Sansthan Trust(Shirdi), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3209/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2023AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri S. Ganesh – Sr. CounselFor Respondent: Dr Kishor Dhule (CIT-DR)
Section 10Section 115BSection 12ASection 143(2)Section 80G

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) 2(1), Mumbai vs. Shree Sai Baba Sansthan Trust (Shirdi), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3049/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2023AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri S. Ganesh – Sr. CounselFor Respondent: Dr Kishor Dhule (CIT-DR)
Section 10Section 115BSection 12ASection 143(2)Section 80G

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT

Shree Sai Baba Sansthan Trust (Shirdi), Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3010/MUM/2022[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2023AY 2015-2016
For Appellant: Shri S. Ganesh – Sr. CounselFor Respondent: Dr Kishor Dhule (CIT-DR)
Section 10Section 115BSection 12ASection 143(2)Section 80G

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT

Padma Dhurway, Durg vs. Income Tax Officer-1(1), Bhilai, Durg

ITA 272/RPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur25 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 272/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Padma Dhurway, Near Pawan Kirana Store, Sangram Chowk, Prem Nagar, Sikola Bhata, Durg (C.G.)-491 001. Pan : Aarpd5814C .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(1), Bhilai (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

payment is made well before the due date of filing the income tax return under 23 Padma Dhurway Vs. ITO-1(1), Bhilai section 139(1). Viewed thus also, the impugned adjustment is vitiated in law, and we must delete the same for this short reason as well

Vasani Enterprises, Thane vs. ACIT Circle 2, Kalyan

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

ITA 2113/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri. Shriram Bajaj.ARFor Respondent: Shri G.V. Ninawe, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 40Section 43B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 2113 & 2114/Mum/2023

Bihari Lal Menghani, New Delhi vs. DCIT CPC, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2011-12 is partly allowed and appeal of the assessee for AY 2018-19 is dismissed

ITA 1623/DEL/2020[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 143(3)

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT

M/S Bihari Lal Menghani, New Delhi vs. JCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2011-12 is partly allowed and appeal of the assessee for AY 2018-19 is dismissed

ITA 1678/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 143(3)

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT

Dy.Comm of Income Tax-17(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Maharashtra State Security Corporation, Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is allowed

ITA 1837/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Oct 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)

1 ITAs 1836 & 1837/Mum/2022 Maharashtra State Security Corporation IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E”,MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI