← 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)

Sri Nirmal Chandra Padhiary, Balasore vs. ACIT, Balasore Circle, Balasore

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

ITA 157/CTK/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack16 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathanआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.157/Ctk/2023 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2017-2018) Sri Nirmal Chandra Padhiary, Vs Acit, Balasore Circle, Balasore Bampada, Chhanpur, Birla Tyre Road, Balasore-756056 Pan No. :Acupp 0872 B (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Mr. Somanath Sahoo, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Charan Dass, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 16/10/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated 25.01.2023 In Appeal No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1049108098(1) For The Assessment Year 2017-2018. 2. This Appeal Of The Assessee Is Time Barred By 35 Days. In This Regard, Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Has Filed An Application Along With Affidavit Of The Assessee For Condonation Of The Delay, To Which The Ld. Sr. Dr Has Not Raised Any Serious Objection To Condone The Delay. On Perusal Of The Application & The Affidavit Of The Assessee, We Found That The Delay Occurred Due To Bonafide Reasons. Accordingly, We Condone The Delay Of 35 Days In Filing The Appeal & Appeal Is Disposed Off Finally. 3. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That Two Additions Are Challenged In This Appeal, One Is Against The Disallowance Of Pf & Esi Paid Belatedly

For Appellant: Shri Mr. Somanath Sahoo, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Charan Dass, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण, “एस.एम.सी” न्यायऩीठ,कटक IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH CUTTACK श्री जाजज माथन

Hi-Shine Inks Pvt. Ltd., Na vs. Arivs.the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Valsad

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 358/SRT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat16 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.358/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Hi-Shine Inks Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Pcit, 208, Gidc Estate, Antalia, Valsad Tal: Gandevi, Dist: Navsari – 396325. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaacu2926J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Sujesh C. Suratwala, Ca Respondent By Shri S. M. Keshkamat, Cit(Dr) 14/09/2023 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 16/10/2023

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM & DR. A. L. SAINI, AM आयकर

The Wanka Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahkari Mandali Ltd, Tapi vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward2 Bardoli, Bardoli

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

ITA 470/SRT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.470/Srt/2023 (Ay 2017-18) (Hearing In Physical Court) The Wanka Vividh Karyakari Seva Income Tax Officer, Sahkari Mandali Ltd. Ward-2, Bardoli, Income Vs At & Po Wanka, Taluka-Nizar, Tax Office, 2Nd Floor, Bsnl Tapi-394370 Building, Opp. Jalaram Akshaymodi40@Gmail.Com Temple, Station Road, Pan No: Aahft 1009 K Bardoli-394601 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 254(1)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, सुरत "ायपीठ, सुरत IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, “SMC” BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL

Neeta Garg, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 30(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 2337/DEL/2023[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2023AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Advocate
Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)

Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) to the assessee. 2. Briefly stated the facts are that the assessee filed her original return of income under section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) on 29.07.2019. Thereafter a revised return under section 139(5) of the Act was filed ... declaring income of Rs.27,14,700/- including the income earned from outside India of Rs.27,16,466/-. The original returns under section 139(1) as well as the revised return under section 139(5) of the Act were filed within the extended due date pursuant to the Notification brought

Nishant Pitti, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-4, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2194/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 2194/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Nishant Pitti, Vs Dcit, C-179, Vivek Vihar Area, Central Circle-4, New Delhi-110095 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Apkpp7345A

For Appellant: Sh. Nirbhey Mehta, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Smita Singh, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. C. M. Garg, Judicial Member Dr. B

Chalakudy Multipurpose Co-Op Society Ltd No. R 1213, Chalakudy vs. ITO Ward 2(1), Thrissur

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed and SA dismissed

ITA 1007/COCH/2022[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Cochin11 Oct 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri Amaljith, P.J., CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 80ASection 80P

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

Shri Ashish Kanjibhai Rathod, Rajkot vs. The DCIT, Cir-2(2)(2), Rajkot

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

ITA 152/RJT/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot11 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. J. Boricha, Sr.D.R
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 69A

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

Mahesh Prasad Singh, Ambikapur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur-1, Raipur

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

ITA 196/RPR/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur10 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.196/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2011-12 Mahesh Prasad Singh Vs The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vidyanagar, Sector-3, Raipur-1 Beside Sant Harkewal School, Ambikapur (C.G.)-497 001 Pan: Bbvps9072H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri R.B Doshi, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Debashis Lahiri, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 26.09.2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am : The Captioned Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 18.03.2023 U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’) For Ay 2011-12. The Grounds Of The Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: “1. Ld. Pr. Cit Erred In Invoking The Provisions Of Sec. 263 & In Setting Aside The Assessment Order For Fresh Enquiry. Order Passed U/S 263 Is Unsustainable & Is Passed Without Properly Appreciating The Facts & Evidences On Record. The Assessment Order Is Neither Erroneous Nor Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue. 2. The Appellant Reserves The Right To Add, Amend Or Modify Any Of The Ground/S Of Appeal.”

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Debashis Lahiri, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 44A

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, रायपुर "यायपीठ, रायपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR "ी र"वश सूद

M/S Anchalumoodu Service Co-Op Bank Limited, Kollam vs. ITO Ward -1 & Tps, Kollam

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed and SA dismissed

ITA 944/COCH/2022[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Cochin10 Oct 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri Santosh P. Abraham, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 80ASection 80P

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

M/S Classicon Builders India Pvt Ltd, Patna vs. DCIT, Circle-2, Patna

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 497/PAT/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna09 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 43C

that the assessee is Private Limited Company engaged in the business of Real Estate. It has filed its return of income electronically under section 139(1) for A.Y. 2016-17 declaring total income of Rs.11,70,000/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment and a notice

Rakesh Janghu, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-28(1), New Delhi

ITA 379/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Oct 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’: NEW DELHI BEFORE, SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI YOGESH

DCIT, Circle-28(1), New Delhi vs. Rakesh Janghu, Gurgaon

ITA 2675/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’: NEW DELHI BEFORE, SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI YOGESH

DCIT, Circle-28(1), New Delhi vs. Rakesh Janghu, Gurgaon

ITA 2644/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Oct 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’: NEW DELHI BEFORE, SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI YOGESH

Vasudha Dalmia, New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle Int Tax 1(1)(1), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2639/DEL/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Oct 2023AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Shri Arijit Chakravarty, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 90

support of claim of foreign tax credit is to be filed within the due date of filing of return of income under section 139(1) of the Act. The due date of filing of return for the impugned assessment Page 2 of 7 ITA No.- 2639/Del/2022 Vasudha Dalmia year

Mavelikara Aided School Employees Co-Op Society Ltd, Mavelikara vs. ITO Ward 1, Thiruvalla

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 974/COCH/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Oct 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am &Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Rajukutty Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Smt.J.M.Jamuna Devi, Sr.DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 142Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 80Section 80ASection 80P

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Sanjay Arora, AM &Shri Manomohan Das, JM ITA No.974/Coch/2022

Umed Hospital Medicare Relief Society, Jodhpur vs. DCIT, CPC /ITO, Exemption Wardm, Bangalore. Jodhpur

ITA 175/JODH/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur06 Oct 2023AY 2015-16
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 288

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM ITA

Shri Shadi Lal Jain, Jalandhar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward II (2), Jalandhar

In the result, the appeal filed by the department is dismissed in the

ITA 59/ASR/2013[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar06 Oct 2023AY 1998-99

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

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 263

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

Shashi Sharma, Ghaziabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1841/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1841/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2016-17 Shashi Sharma, Vs Dcit, Ka-5, Kavi Nagar, Central Circle, Ghaziabad-201001 Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Ageps6394R

For Appellant: Sh. Rajiv Khandelwal, CA &For Respondent: Mr. Waseem Arshad, CIT DR
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘C’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. C. M. Garg, Judicial Member Dr. B

Gudwala & Sons, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 4, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1919/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr.DR
Section 131Section 132Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 69A

which commenced on 20.09.2014 and concluded on 21.09.2014. Subsequent to search, the assessee filed its return of income on 30.09.2015 under Section 139(1) of I.T.A. No.1919/Del/2018 3 the Act declaring total income at Rs.33,24,770/- for the Assessment Year 2015-16 in question. The return filed was subjected

Mustansir Muhammad Dalvi, Panvel vs. ITO, Ward-2, Panvel

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

ITA 2185/MUM/2023[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Oct 2023AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Mumbai “D” Bench, Mumbai. Before Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (JM