“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)

Bhuneshwar Prasad Sahu, Baloda Bazar, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- Bhatapara, Bhatapara

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

ITA 109/RPR/2023[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Raipur04 Sept 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.109/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Bhuneshwar Prasad Sahu Main Road, Raseda, Baloda Bazar, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Bayps7721N .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Khapradih, Bhatapara ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR

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

appreciate the fact that the impugned amount of Rs.48,88,147.00 were duly paid before the due date of section 139(1). 2. That other ground shall be pressed at the time of hearing.” 2. Succinctly stated, the assessee had e-filed his return of income for A.Y.2019-20 ... disallowance does not come into play when the payment is made well before the due date of filing the income tax return under 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

ACIT, Special Range-9, New Delhi vs. Tulip Infratech Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7191/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2015-16 Acit, Vs. Tulip Infratech Pvt. Ltd. Special Range-9, 1201-1204, New Delhi. Indra Prakash Building, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan Aacct3755E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Shailesh Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143BSection 194CSection 43B

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “H”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL

M/S Sangam Souhard Credit Sahakari Limited, Bagalkot vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

Appeals are ALLOWED

ITA 30/PAN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji01 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali(Through Virtual Hearing From Pune) आयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 001/Pan/2023 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Shri Bhagyalaxmi Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd., Mallapur, Pg Main Rd., Ghataprabha, Karnataka-591306 Pan: Aaaas5624D . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिधम / V/S Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cpc, Bengaluru . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent & आयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 030/Pan/2023 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2018-19 M/S Sangam Souharda Credit Sahakari Ltd., A/P. Galgali, Taluka-Bilgi, Dist.-Bagalkot-587117 Pan: Aaeas3685G . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिधम / V/S Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cpc, Bengaluru . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent द्वधरध / Appearances Assessee By : Mr Sateesh Nadagouda For Ita No. 001& None For Ita No. 030 [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Mr N. Shrikanth [‘Ld. Dr’] सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 07/08/2023 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 01/09/2023 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; These Two Appeals Of Different Assessee Are Instituted U/S 253(1) Of Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’ Hereafter] Against Respective Orders Passed U/S 250 Of The Act By National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Nfac’ Hereafter] For Assessment Year 2018-19 [‘Ay’ Hereinafter].

For Appellant: Mr Sateesh Nadagouda forFor Respondent: Mr N. Shrikanth [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 246(1)Section 250Section 253(1)Section 80ASection 80A(1)Section 80P

॥ आयकर अपीलीय न्यायाधिकरण, पणजी न्यायपीठ, पणजी में ॥ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘PANAJI’ BENCH, PANAJI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH

Shri Bhagyalaxmi Co-Operative Credit Society Limited, Mallapur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangaluru

Appeals are ALLOWED

ITA 1/PAN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji01 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Mr Sateesh Nadagouda forFor Respondent: Mr N. Shrikanth [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 246(1)Section 250Section 253(1)Section 80ASection 80A(1)Section 80P

The Omkar Urban Co-Operative Credit Society Limited, Belagavi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Belagavi

The appeal is ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE in aforestated terms

ITA 84/PAN/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji01 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G. D. Padmahshali(Through Virtual Hearing From Pune) आयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 84/Pan/2022 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2017-18 The Omkar Urban Co-Op. Cr. Society Ltd. A/P. : Kangral (Bk.), Belagavi. Pan: Aaaat3508P . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

For Appellant: Mr Chetan Chougule [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr N. Shrikanth [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144(1)(b)Section 250Section 253(1)Section 68Section 80ASection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)

income u/s 68 of the Act and further denied a claim of 80P deduction for not complying with the time lines prescribed by section 139(1) of the Act. 2.3. Aggrieved assessee unsuccessfully challenged the best judgement assessment in an appeal before first appellate authority, for the reason by present

Rahul Ranjit Bhat, Mumbai vs. Asstt. DIT CPC-Income Tax, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1340/MUM/2023[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Aug 2023AY 2020-2021

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing Return Of Income As Per Rule 128(9) Of The Income Tax Rules, 1962 In The Adjustment Made U/S.143(1).

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 39(1)Section 90

cannot be a concept of delay in filing of form No.67 or that it has not been filed within the due date of Section 139(1). Now the amendment has been made in sub-Rule 9 of Rule 128 vide notification dated 18/08/2022 wherein it has been provided that

Dy CIT, Circle-17(1), Mumbai vs. Ahmed Hussein Dawoodani (L/H of Hussein Ismail Dawoodani), Mumbai

ITA 486/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Syed Ashfaq Ahmed NadeemFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Kishinchandani

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 80CSection 80I

that the return of income for the Assessment Year 2012-13 and filed belatedly on 11/04/2013 after expiry of the times specified under Section 139(1) of the Act. Without taking the aforesaid into consideration, the CIT(A) allowed claim for deduction made by the Assessee under Section 80IB

M/S. Khadi Grammodhyog Pratisthan, Bikaner vs. ADIT, CPC / ITO, Ward-1(2), Bangaluru / Bikaner

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 87/JODH/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur31 Aug 2023AY 2019-20

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 250(6)

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

Jaquar and Company Private Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-19, Delhi

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

ITA 1985/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG (Judicial Member), DR. B.R.R. KUMAR (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 80J

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

Pulpatta Service Co-Operative Bank Limited, Malappuram vs. The ITO Ward-2, Tirur

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 836/COCH/2022[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Aug 2023AY 2014-2015

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

For Appellant: Sh.K. Rishal, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR

Section 10ASection 10BSection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 80A(5)Section 80PSection 80P(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Sanjay Arora, AM &Shri Manomohan Das, JM ITA No.836/Coch/2022

Dipen Kumarpal Parekh, Mumbai vs. NFAC- DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1703/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. P.D. Chougule, DR

Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(via)

loss is claimed was furnished beyond the due date specified under sub due date specified under sub-section (1) of section 139; (1) of section 139; (iv) disallowance of expenditure [or increase in income] indicated (iv) disallowance of expenditure [or increase in income] indicated (iv) disallowance of expenditure [or increase

DCIT-Circle-3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. S D Corporation Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue vide ITA Nos

ITA 6204/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos.6191 To 6194, 6204 & 6033 /Mum/2019 (A.Ys. 2008-09, 2009-10, 2011-12 To 2014-15)

For Appellant: Mahita NairFor Respondent: Dharmesh Shah &

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147

P a g e | 1 ITA Nos. 6191 to 6194, 6204 & 6033/Mum/2019 DCIT ,CC-3(3)(1) Vs. M/s S.D

DCIT-Circle-3(3) (1), Mumbai vs. S D Corporation Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue vide ITA Nos

ITA 6194/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos.6191 To 6194, 6204 & 6033 /Mum/2019 (A.Ys. 2008-09, 2009-10, 2011-12 To 2014-15)

For Appellant: Mahita NairFor Respondent: Dharmesh Shah &

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147

P a g e | 1 ITA Nos. 6191 to 6194, 6204 & 6033/Mum/2019 DCIT ,CC-3(3)(1) Vs. M/s S.D

DCIT-Circle-3(3) (1), Mumbai vs. S D Corporation Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue vide ITA Nos

ITA 6193/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos.6191 To 6194, 6204 & 6033 /Mum/2019 (A.Ys. 2008-09, 2009-10, 2011-12 To 2014-15)

For Appellant: Mahita NairFor Respondent: Dharmesh Shah &

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147

P a g e | 1 ITA Nos. 6191 to 6194, 6204 & 6033/Mum/2019 DCIT ,CC-3(3)(1) Vs. M/s S.D

DCIT-Circle-3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. S D Corporation Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue vide ITA Nos

ITA 6192/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos.6191 To 6194, 6204 & 6033 /Mum/2019 (A.Ys. 2008-09, 2009-10, 2011-12 To 2014-15)

For Appellant: Mahita NairFor Respondent: Dharmesh Shah &

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147

P a g e | 1 ITA Nos. 6191 to 6194, 6204 & 6033/Mum/2019 DCIT ,CC-3(3)(1) Vs. M/s S.D

DCIT-Circle-3(3) (1), Mumbai vs. S D Corporation Private Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue vide ITA Nos

ITA 6191/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos.6191 To 6194, 6204 & 6033 /Mum/2019 (A.Ys. 2008-09, 2009-10, 2011-12 To 2014-15)

For Appellant: Mahita NairFor Respondent: Dharmesh Shah &

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147

P a g e | 1 ITA Nos. 6191 to 6194, 6204 & 6033/Mum/2019 DCIT ,CC-3(3)(1) Vs. M/s S.D

DCIT Circle 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. S D Corporation Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue vide ITA Nos

ITA 6033/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos.6191 To 6194, 6204 & 6033 /Mum/2019 (A.Ys. 2008-09, 2009-10, 2011-12 To 2014-15)

For Appellant: Mahita NairFor Respondent: Dharmesh Shah &

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147

P a g e | 1 ITA Nos. 6191 to 6194, 6204 & 6033/Mum/2019 DCIT ,CC-3(3)(1) Vs. M/s S.D

Blueprint Infrahomes LLP, Jaipur vs. ADIT CPC Bengaluru Or ITO Ward 6(1) Jaipur, Jaipur

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

ITA 68/JPR/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Aug 2023AY 2021-22

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

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT)

Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 801BSection 80I

part of the order from the assessment order. The return admittedly was uploaded only on 31.03.2014 and admittedly was late in terms of Section 139(1), though within the extended time as set out in Section 139(4) as far as the levy of penalty etc. was concerned. Section 80AC

Vishnu Dattatraya Ponkshe, Mumbai vs. CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 1570/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryshri Vishnu Dattatraya Ponkshe Central Processing Centre 21, Krishnakunj Apartment Bengaluru Plot 16, Road 4, Jay Prakash Vs. Nagar, Goregaon East Mumbai 400063 Pan – Aadpp3230G Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Jitendra Singh, Ld. Ca Respondent By : Sh. Naganath B. Pasale, Ld.Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.08.2023

For Appellant: Sh. Jitendra Singh, Ld. CAFor Respondent: Sh. Naganath B. Pasale, Ld.DR

Section 139(1)Section 194JSection 250Section 44Section 44ASection 94J

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI Before Shri B.R. Baskaran, Accountant Member & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

Deloitte India Advisory Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi/CIT(A), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1202/MUM/2023[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2023AY 2020-2021

Bench: The Revised Return, Therefore The Appellant Ought To Have Been Allowed Entire Foreign Tax Relief Of Rs. 2,82,44,841. 1.3 The Learned Nfac Ought To Have Appreciated That Rule 128 Of The Income Tax Rules, 1962 Does Not Provide For Disallowance Of Foreign Tax Relief In Case Of Filing Of Revised Form 67 Along With The Revised Return. 1.4 The Learned Nfac Ought To Have Granted The Balance Foreign Tax Relief Amounting To Rs. 1,34,86,569 Since The Appellant Has Filed The Revised Form 67 Before The Due Date Of Filing Of Revised Return Of Income.

Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 90Section 90(2)

Income-tax Rules, 1962 and holding that filing of Form 67 should be before the due date of filing of original return under section 139(1) of the Act is a mandatory condition for availing FTC. He further held that certain relaxations have been made subsequently but same would ... cannot be treated that there is a delay in filing of From 67 and that has not been filed within due date of Section 139(1). 9. Now the amendment has been made in sub-Rule 9 of Rule 128 vide notification dated 18/08/2022 wherein it has been provided that