“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)

Dipen Kumarpal Parekh, Mumbai vs. Assessing Officer, NFAC, New Delhi

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

ITA 1702/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledipen Kumarpal Parekh Vs. Assessing Officer, 603, Patel Niwas, Sainath Nfac, New Delhi Road, Malad (W) Mumbai – 4000064. Pan/Gir No. : Aadpp6112D Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Ashwin Kashinath.Ar Respondent By : Shri R.P. Veena.Dr Date Of Hearing 23.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 24.08.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Passed U/S 154 & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Ashwin Kashinath.ARFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Veena.DR

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

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

Neha Kapoor, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 70(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 135/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year 2020-21 Neha Kapoor Vs. Ito, Ward 70(1), C/O C.S. Anand, Advocate, New Delhi, 104 Pankaj Tower 10 Lsc, Savita Vihar, New Delhi Pan Biopk2958N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri C.S. Anand, Advocate Department By: Ms. Smita Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 08.08.2023 Date Of 29.08.2023 Pronouncement: O R D E R Per Astha Chandra, Jm

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Smita Singh, Sr. DR

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 90

ground that the assessee failed to furnish Form 67 on or before the due date for furnishing the return prescribed under section 139(1) of the Act which is mandatory according to Rule 128(9) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (“Rules”). It was also submitted that under section

Ojin Bakers & Restaurant, Kozhikode vs. The ITO Ward 1(1), Kozhikode

In the result, ITA No. 181/Coch/2023 is allowed for statistical purposes, and ITA Nos

ITA 183/COCH/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Shri Manomohan Dasojin Bakes The Income Tax Officer 1/4780, A.B.C.D.E.G. Ward – 1(1), Kozhikode Dhana Plaza, West Nadakkavu Vs. Kozhikode 673011 [Pan:Abjfs8500K] (Appellant) (Respondent) Ojin Bakers, Medical College The Income Tax Officer 30/72/F, Kozhikode Medical Ward – 1(1), Kozhikode Vs. College, Kozhikode 673008 [Pan:Aacfo6978M] (Appellant) (Respondent) Ojin Bakes & Restaurant The Income Tax Officer 213761/F-5,G36, Happy Tower Ward – 1(1), Kozhikode Vattakkinar, Post Arts College Vs. Meenchanda, Kozhikode 673011 [Pan: Aabfo8886D] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri R. Krishnan, Ca Respondent By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 12.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.08.2023

For Appellant: Shri R. Krishnan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 271BSection 273BSection 44A

requirement of furnishing TAR u/s.44AB stands delinked from the filing of the return of income by Finance Act, 1995, w.e.f. 01.07.1995. Reference to section 139(1) in s.44AB of the Act is only for the purpose of the due date applicable to the assessee’s case for filing the return

Ojin Bakers, Medical College, Kozhikode vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Kozhikode

In the result, ITA No. 181/Coch/2023 is allowed for statistical purposes, and ITA Nos

ITA 182/COCH/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri R. Krishnan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 271BSection 273BSection 44A

Ojin Bakers, Kozhikode vs. The ITO Ward 1(1), Kozhikode

In the result, ITA No. 181/Coch/2023 is allowed for statistical purposes, and ITA Nos

ITA 181/COCH/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri R. Krishnan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 271BSection 273BSection 44A

Aap & Co., Surat vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Banglore

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 28/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Aap & Co., D.C.I.T. (Cpc), L 16-17, Agrasen Point, Bangalore. Vs. Opp. Maharaja Arcade, Surat, Gujarat- 395007 Pan No. Aarfa 8951 B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 143(1)(a)Section 254(1)Section 43B

Assessing Officer/CPC by taking a view that undisputedly, the assessee has not paid service tax till filing of return of income under Section 139(1) of the Act. Before me, the ld. AR of the assessee in alternative submissions vehemently submitted that the assessee applied for the benefit of SVLDRS

Chand Monammad, Ajmer vs. ITO, Ward 1(3), Ajmer

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

ITA 340/JPR/2022[2012-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Aug 2023AY 2012-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Nikhlesh Kataria, CAFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl.CIT

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151

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

Ess Ess Kay Engineering Company Private Limited, Jalandhar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle -4, Jalandhar

In the result, the appellant’s appeal is Dismissed

ITA 143/ASR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.143/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ess Ess Kay Engineering Co. Vs. Nfac, Delhi/C/O Asstt. Pvt. Ltd. Factory Area, Commissioner Of Income Jalandhar. Tax Circle-4, Jalandhar. [Pan: Aaace5057G] (Respondent) (Appellant)

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250oSection 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 43B

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

M/S Altab Traders, Kashmir vs. The Income Tax Officer, Baramulla

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 58/ASR/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

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

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 145(3)Section 250Section 37(1)Section 40

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

ACIT, Central Circle-2, Faridabad vs. Btl Holding Ltd.(Btl Investments & Securities Ltd.), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 9115/DEL/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Aug 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.9115/Del/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2007-08 बनाम Acit, Btl Holding Ltd. Central Circle-2, Vs. (Btl Investments & Securities Ltd.) Faridabad, Haryana. Barakhamba Road, Connaught Place New Delhi. Pan No. Aaacn5131E अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 132Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

I.T.A. No. 9115/Del/2019 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “B” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL

Sadanand Champakrao Manekar, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CPC, Begaluru

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

ITA 1516/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalesadanand Champak Rao Vs. Dcit, Cpc Manekar Bangalore.-560500 C/O Sanjay Vhanbatte & Compnay, Cts No. 245, C/1, First Floor, Mahalaxmi Bank Bldg, Near Kelavkar Hospital Tarabai Park, Mumbai – 416003. Pan/Gir No. : Acepm7834N Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Bhavesh Jain.Ar Respondent By : Shri Rp Veena.Dr Date Of Hearing 24.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 25.08.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Passed U/S 143(1) & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal. Sadanand Champakrao Manekar, Mumbai. 1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi Erred In Confirming The Addition Made By The Dcit, Cpc, Bengaluru By Way Of Adjustment U/S 143(1)(A) In Respect Of Employees' Contribution To Provident Fund & Esic Payment Of Rs. 14,21,489/- As Not Being Allowable As Deduction Under Section 36(1)(Va) As The Contribution Has Been Deposited With The Respective Authority After The Due Date As Provided Under The Respective Law. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Cit(A), Erred In Not Accepting The Contention Of The Appellant That Such Action Of The Dcit Does Not Fall Within The Ambit Of The Adjustments Prescribed Under Section 143(1)(A). The Appellant Craves Leave To Add To, Amend, Alter, Modify, Delete Or Add A New Ground Of Appeal Before Or At The Time Of Hearing.

For Appellant: Shri Bhavesh Jain.ARFor Respondent: Shri RP Veena.DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)

Sanjay Kumar, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward 4(1), Gurugram

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

ITA 2471/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Delhi24 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Dey & Sh. Pradip Kumar Kediasanjay Kumar Ca Mr Vs. Ito Sahu M. Sahu & Ward- 4 (1) Associates Chartered Gurugram Accountant House No.651, 1St Floor, Sector- 10A, Nr. Union Bank Of India, Gurgaon Haryana 122001 Pan No.Cmipk8618J (Appellant) (Respondent)

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

submitted that the impugned employee’s contribution towards PF and 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

The ACIT, - 4 (10, Indore vs. M/S Sanghvi Foods Pvt. Ltd., Indore

ITA 22/IND/2023[2019-0]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Aug 2023

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year:2019-20 Acit, Sanghvi Foods Private 4(1), Limited, Indore. 362-Aa, Silver House, बनाम/ Scheme No. 74C, Vs. A.B.Road, Indore (Revenue / Appellant) (Assessee / Respondent) Pan: Aaccs4128C Assessee By Shri S.N.Agrawal & Shri Pankaj Mongra, Cas Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 22.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 24.08.2023

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 37Section 40A(7)Section 43B