“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)

Smt. Tara Devi Agrawal, Bhopal vs. The NFAC Centre, Delhi, Bhopal

Appeal is allowed

ITA 115/IND/2023[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Indore20 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2013-14 Tara Devi Agrawal N.F.A.C., बनाम/ Chowk Bazar, Delhi Bhopal Vs. (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Adjpa5134F Assessee By Ms.Nisha Lahoti, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 20.09.2023

Section 139(1)Section 271(1)(c)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY

Ghanshyam Gupta, 8, Dashera Kothi, Govind Nagar, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward 5 (1) Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 246/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Ms. Suhani Maharwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT

Section 115BSection 133Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, ‘’SMC” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U

Smt. Renu Gurjar, Udaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Udaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 201/JODH/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur18 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153A

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

M/S Adim Jati Seva Sahkari Samiti, Maryadit, Korba vs. Income Tax Officer-2, Korba

In the result, the assessee's appeal is dismissed in terms of our observations above

ITA 50/RPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 50/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Adim Jati Seva Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Korba, Korba P.O, Chhattisgarh-495 677 Pan : Aadaa9825F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-2, Korba (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nikhilesh Begani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 129Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 142(1)(i)Section 144Section 144(1)(b)Section 250Section 69A

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ रायपुर म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI RAVISH

Narendra Agrawal, Jabalpur vs. ITO-Ward 1 (2), Jabalpur

In the result, the both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 25/JAB/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur15 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita No. 25 & 26/Jab/2023 (A.Y: 2012-13 & 2016-17) Narendra Agrawal, Vs. Ito, Ward 1(2), 932, Wright Town, Annexe Building, Jabalpur 482001, Aayakar Bhavan, Madhyapradesh. Jabalpur, Madhyapradesh. Pan/Gir No. : Adopa3476D Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri.Sapanusrethe, Adv.Ar Respondentby : Shri.Shiv Kumar.Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 14.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 15.09.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Different Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi / Cit(A) & Passed The Order U/Sec 250 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri.SapanUsrethe, Adv.ARFor Respondent: Shri.Shiv Kumar.Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 154Section 43B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “DB” BENCH, JABALPUR BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE

Jt CIT (OSD), CC-3(1), Mumbai vs. Vallabhbhai Parsottambhai Surani, Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 498/MUM/2021[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Sept 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Blejt. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Osd) V. Vallabhbhai Parsottambhai Surani Central Circle – 3(1) 1, Sundaram Bunglow Room No. 1924, 19Th Floor Lambe Hanuman Road Air India Building, Nariman Point Opp. Saiffe Society Mumbai – 400 021 Gujrat - 395006 Pan: Ajyps2262F (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.164/Mum/2021 [Arising Out Of Ita No. 498/Mum/2021 (A.Y: 2007-08)] Vallabhbhai Parsottambhai Surani V. Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Osd) 1, Sundaram Bunglow Central Circle – 3(1) Room No. 1924, 19Th Floor Lambe Hanuman Road Air India Building, Nariman Point Opp. Saiffe Society Mumbai – 400 021 Gujrat - 395006 Pan: Ajyps2262F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Bharat Kumar Department Represented By : Dr. Mahesh Akhade

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “B”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND

Bhawna Computers LLP (Converted From Bhawna Computers Pvt. Ltd.), Mumbai vs. DCIT - CC-7(3), Mumbai

ITA 6402/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Sept 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi& Shri Rahul Choudhary

For Appellant: CA Rushabh MehtaFor Respondent: Samuel Pitta, Sr. AR

Section 142Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER& SHRI RAHUL CHOUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Bhawana Computers LLP (Converted From Bhawna Computers Pvt. Ltd.), Mumbau vs. DCIT - CC 7 (3), Mumbai

ITA 6401/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Sept 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi& Shri Rahul Choudhary

For Appellant: CA Rushabh MehtaFor Respondent: Samuel Pitta, Sr. AR

Section 142Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER& SHRI RAHUL CHOUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER

DCIT -CC-7(3), Mumbai vs. M/S Bhawna Computers LLP, Mumbai

ITA 6127/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Sept 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi& Shri Rahul Choudhary

For Appellant: CA Rushabh MehtaFor Respondent: Samuel Pitta, Sr. AR

Section 142Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER& SHRI RAHUL CHOUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER

DCIT -CC-7(3), Mumbai vs. Bhawna Computer Private Limted, Mumbai

ITA 6126/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Sept 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi& Shri Rahul Choudhary

For Appellant: CA Rushabh MehtaFor Respondent: Samuel Pitta, Sr. AR

Section 142Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER& SHRI RAHUL CHOUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER

ACIT, Circle 49(1), Delhi vs. Richa & Co., Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed subject to our directions contained in para 8 above

ITA 2354/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri K V S R Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 34(1)(iv)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

wherein it is held that the Employees’ Contribution to PF/ESIC deposited before the due date of filing of return of income under section 139(1) is allowable as deduction to the assessee and that the amendment brought by Finance Act, 2021 is applicable from AY 2021-22. 5. Dissatisfied

Smt. Anjali Bhadoo, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 633/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA (Accountant Member), MS. ASTHA CHANDRA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Suraj Bhan Nain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Anita Meena, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 54

transfer of the original asset. The appellant has claimed deduction on the amount invested till the due date of filing of return under section 139(1) of the Income-tax Act. In this factual background, we do not find any cogent ground to hold that the respondents do not fulfil

Khushalrao Keshavrao Garje, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Banglore, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1866/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Ms. Rucha VaidyaFor Respondent: Shri P.D. Chogule

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 254(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

wherein the ld. AO/CPC disallowed claim of ESI/EPF contribution, although the same was paid before due date for filing return of income under section 139(1) 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC erred in not appreciating that the issue

Rameshwar Prasad Shrivastava, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 70(1), Delhi

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

ITA 1839/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Sept 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2020-21 Rameshwar Prasad Shrivastava, Vs Ito, 344, Pocket-1, Sector-12, Ward-70(1), Dwarka, Delhi. Delhi – 110 078. Pan: Audps0424K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Om Parkash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 11.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.09.2023

For Appellant: Shri Devesh Poddar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)

Commissioner (Appeals) - Commissioner (Appeals) held that since assessee had failed to file Form No. 67 within due date specified for filing return under section 139(1), Assessing Officer had rightly disallowed claim for foreign tax credit - It was noted that Bangalore Bench of Tribunal on identical issue in case ... taxmann.com 358/193 ITD 840 held that non-furnishing of Form No. 67 before due date specified for furnishing return under section 139(1) was not fatal to claim for foreign tax credit - Whether Assessing Officer was to be directed to give credit for foreign tax as per Form

DCIT, Central Circle-4, New Delhi vs. Anand Persad Jaiswal, New Dehi

In the result the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2742/DEL/2022[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Sept 2023AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2003-04 The Dcit, Central Circle-04, New Delhi Anand Persad Jaiswal, 54, Ring Road, Lajpat Nagar-Iii, New Delhi 110024 Vs. Pan Adrpj 2549 M (Appellant) (Respondent) For Revenue: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. Dr For Assessee: Shri Deepchand Garg, Ca Date Of Hearing : 17.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.09.2023 Order Per Chandra Mohan Garg, J.M. This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Cit(A)-23, New Delhi Dated 25.08.2022 For Ay 2003-04. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Revenue Are As Follows: 1. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Quashing The Assessment Order Relying On The Decision Of Hon'Ble Delhi High Court In The Case Of Brahm. Dutt (100 Taxmann.Com 324) Without Appreciating That The Amendment To Sec 149(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 By Finance Act, 2021 Was Retrospective In Nature In View Of Explanation To Sec 149 As Held By Itat (D Bench Mumbai) In The Case Of Dilip J. Thakkar (135 Taxmann.Com 208) After Considering The Decision Of Hon'Ble Delhi High Court In Brahm Dutt (Supra).

For Appellant: Shri Deepchand Garg, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 149(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: A: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR

AO, CPC Bengaluru, Karnataka vs. Kamlesh Kumar Singh, Panipat (Haryana)

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

ITA 1458/DEL/2021[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Sept 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Sh. Pradip Kumar Kedia & Sh. Yogesh Kumar Usao Vs. Kamlesh Kumar Singh Cpc House No.112, Near Shiv Deep Bengaluru Public School, Refiney Township Karnataka Road, Vpo Dadlana, Panipat Haryana – 132 140 Pan No. Aadck 5251 H (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36

Intelligent Communication Systems India Ltd. vs. CIT(A) 2 ESIC has been paid and deposited before the due date allowed under Section 139(1) of the Act although the assessee has remitted the payment belatedly and beyond the due dates specified in respects Acts. It was thus contended that where

Remote Software Solutions Pvt. Ltd, Alto Betim vs. Assessing Officer, Ward - 2(4), Panaji

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

ITA 35/PAN/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji06 Sept 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.34 & 35/Pan/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2018-19 To 2019-20 Remote Software Solutions Vs. Assessing Officer, Pvt. Ltd., Ward-2(4), Panaji. H.No.1661, Near Tarun Bharat, Alto Betim, Penha De Franca-Goa- 403521. Pan : Aadcr0144G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Ashwini D. Hosmani Date Of Hearing : 04.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.09.2023 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 16.03.2022 For The Assessment Years 2018-19 & 2019-20 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.34/Pan/2022 For The Assessment Year 2018-19 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ashwini D. Hosmani

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

within due date prescribed under respective Statutes, but paid before due date for filing of 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

Remote Software Solutions Pvt. Ltd, Alto Betim vs. Assessing Officer, Ward - 2(4), Panaji

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

ITA 34/PAN/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji06 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ashwini D. Hosmani

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

Aghorpeeth Jan Sewa Abhed Ashram, Akaltara, Janjgir-Champa vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-Exemption, Bilaspur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 239/RPR/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur05 Sept 2023AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 239/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2021-22 Aghorpeeth Jan Sewa Abhed Ashram Pondidilha Akaltara, Janjgir, Champa (C.G.)-495 549 Pan : Aafta1866R .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer (Exemption), Ward Bilaspur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 11Section 139(1)Section 143(1)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ रायपुर म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI RAVISH

Shri Kamlesh Sen, Bhopal vs. The CIT (A) NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 98/IND/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore05 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Kamlesh Sen Nfac 55, Saluja Complex Delhi Vs. M.P. Nagar-1 Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Bejps 5672C Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal & Shri N.D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 04.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 05.09.2023

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 246ASection 250Section 34(1)(iv)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY