← 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)

Shafa Home, New Delhi vs. ITO, (Exemption) Ward 2(1), New Delhi

Appeal stands allowed for statistical

ITA 725/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 13(9)Section 143(3)

However, in those cases where the Income Tax Returns have also been filed beyond the due date prescribed under section 139(1) of the Act, the condonation of delay in filing of Form 9A & Form 10 by the Commissioners is not of any help to the assessee, as section ... conditions, inter alia, that such person submits the prescribed Form No. 10 electronically to the Assessing Officer within the due date specified under section 139(1) of the Act 3. Further, where the income from the property held under trust and applied to charitable or religious purposes falls short

Shalabh Arora, Gautam Budh Nagar vs. ITO, Ward-5.3.4, Noida

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

ITA 187/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. M. P. Rastogi, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anuj Garg, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)

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

Akriti Jewelcraftz (P) Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2262/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Singh, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43Section 43B

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

Major Suresh Yadav(Retd.), New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-24(3), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 9432/DEL/2019[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2023AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2003-04] Major Suresh Yadav (Retd.), Vs Ito, Farm No.36, Dera Mandi Road, Ward-24(3), Mandi Gaon, Near Chattarpur, New Delhi. New Delhi-110030. Pan-Aaupy5153C Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Mukesh Kohli, Ca Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 28.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31.07.2023

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 234A

just 04 days before expiring of limitation to pass assessment order), he has stated that return filed as per the provisions of section 139(1) of the Act, may kindly be treated as return filed in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act. We have filed our reply against ... there and the A.O. admitted that on 27.12.2010, the assessee has stated that return filed as per provision of section 139(1) of the act may kindly be treated as return filed in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act. It is clearly evident that notice

Kayamkulam Co-Op Bank Ltd, Alappuzha vs. The ITO Ward 1, Alappuzha

ITA 56/COCH/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Shri Manomohan Das, Judicialmember Kayamkulam Co- The Income Tax Officer Operative Bank Ltd. Ward – 1, Palace Road, Krishanpuram Vs. Alappuzha Kayamkulam 690533 Pan – Aabak5868L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Bijuman Antony, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 271BSection 44A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Sanjay Arora, AccountantMemberand Shri Manomohan Das, JudicialMember Kayamkulam Co

S.R.Digital and Broadband Pvt.Ltd., Indore vs. PCIT(1), Indore

Appeal is allowed

ITA 38/IND/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2016-17 S.R. Digital Tv & Pcit, Broadband Private Indore बनाम/ Limited, 335 Orbit Mall, A. B.Road, Vs. Indore. (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aavcs1165L Assessee By Shri S.S.Solanki, C.A. Revenue By Shri P.K.Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 02.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31.07.2023

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80

those three issues. Precisely, these issues are as under: (i) The return declaring loss was filed on 24.04.2017 which was not as per section 139(1)/(3), therefore the loss was not allowed to be carried forward as per section 80. The AO has failed to apply the provision ... 1 - Regarding carry forward of losses: Ld. PCIT observed that the assessee has filed return declaring loss which is not in accordance with section 139(1)/139(3) and therefore the carry forward of loss is not allowed by section 80 but the AO has allowed. In this regard

Gajra Gearr Kamgar Sshakari Sanstha My., Dewas vs. The DCIT, CPC, Banglore

ITA 347/IND/2022[018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Jul 2023

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year:2018-19 Gajra Gears Kamgar Dcit, Cpc Sahakari Sanstha Bangalore Maryadit, बनाम/ C/O Gajra Gears Pvt. Ltd., Station Road, Vs. Dewas (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aabag2492C Assessee By Shri Sharad Jain, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 27.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31.07.2023

Section 10ASection 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 80Section 80ASection 80P

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

Navrang Basant Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-17(2)(4), Mumbai

ITA 1354/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jul 2023AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Ms. Krupa Toprani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri. B. Laxmi Kanth, D.R
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 234BSection 80ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/s

DCIT, Central Circle-8, Delhi vs. Anita Singhal, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 2042/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2015-2016 The Dcit, Central Circle-8, Smt. Anita Singhal, Room No.333, 3Rd Floor, E-2, Ara 9-10, Saraswati Kunj, 8, Alipur Centre, Jhandewalan Extension, Vs. Road, Civil Lines, Delhi. Delhi – 110 054. Pin 110 055 Pan Aozps8474D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Nippun Mittal, C.A. And Shri Pranav Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Sidharth, CIT-D.R
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

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

Suresh Kumar Doodi, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Circle-6, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 164/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Sh. Nageswar Rao (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehra (Addl. CIT) a
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 234ASection 90

appreciating that filing of Form 67 under Rule 128 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 before due date specified under section 139(1) of the Act is a mere procedural requirement in comparison to substantive right of being entitled to obtain credit for tax paid in a treaty Country

Neel Controls, Mumbai vs. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi

In the result, all the appeals under consideration are allowed for statistical purposes, in the aforesaid terms

ITA 373/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharish, Am & Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm

For Respondent: Shri. Ashok Kumar Ambastha
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 36(1)(iii)

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISH, AM & SHRI N. K. CHOUDHRY, JM

Tushar James, Bangalore vs. CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi

ITA 1479/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2023AY 2020-21
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri B. Laxmi Kanth, D.R
Section 139Section 143(1)Section 250Section 90

basis of DTAA assessee has to file form 67 before the due date of filing of the original return under section 139(1) of the Act which is one of the mandatory conditions for availing Foreign Tax Credit ITA No.1478 & 1479/M/2023 5 Shri Tushar James

Tushar James, Bangalore vs. CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi

ITA 1478/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2023AY 2019-20
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri B. Laxmi Kanth, D.R
Section 139Section 143(1)Section 250Section 90

basis of DTAA assessee has to file form 67 before the due date of filing of the original return under section 139(1) of the Act which is one of the mandatory conditions for availing Foreign Tax Credit ITA No.1478 & 1479/M/2023 5 Shri Tushar James

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax. Central Circle-1(2), Mumbai vs. Shri Milan Kavinchandra Parikh, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1382/MUM/2023[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2023AY 1997-98

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Anuj KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

section 148 of the Act was issued. In response to the aforesaid notice, the assessee filed a letter that the return filed under section 139(1) of the Act be treated as a return filed in compliance with the notice issued under section 148 of the Act. The reasons recorded

Neel Controls, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) National Faceless Appeal Centre, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals under consideration are allowed for statistical purposes, in the aforesaid terms

ITA 1227/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharish, Am & Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm

For Respondent: Shri. Ashok Kumar Ambastha
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 36(1)(iii)

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISH, AM & SHRI N. K. CHOUDHRY, JM

Neel Controls, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeal, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals under consideration are allowed for statistical purposes, in the aforesaid terms

ITA 1226/MUM/2023[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2023AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharish, Am & Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm

For Respondent: Shri. Ashok Kumar Ambastha
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 36(1)(iii)

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISH, AM & SHRI N. K. CHOUDHRY, JM

The Nutan Laxmi Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd., Mumbai vs. Add/Jt/Dy/ACIT/ITO, Nfc, Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 1214/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1214/Mum/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2018-19) The Nutan Laxmi Co- Add/Jt/Dy/Acit/Ito, Operative Housing Society Nfac, Delhi. Ltd Mumbai Room No. 356, C R Bldg, Ip Jay Hind Club Bldg, Estate, Mumbai- 110002 Vs Jvpd Scheme 2Nd Floor, Ns Road, Vile(W), Mumbai-400049 Pan No. Aaaat1208J (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) : (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) अपीलधर्थीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Shalin S Divatia प्रत्यर्थीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. Suresh Gaikwas, Sr.Ar. Date Of Hearing : 06.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.07.2023

For Appellant: Shri Shalin S DivatiaFor Respondent: Shri. Suresh Gaikwas, Sr.AR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 250Section 80ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(2)(d)

virtue of the same it is claiming the benefits of the due date for filing of auditable case in terms provisions of section 139 (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 but on the other hand it did not e-filed its audit report at the time of filing ... cannot be allowed since the appellant has failed to file its return of income as per provision of section 139(1) of the Act. Accordingly,the grounds at S.No. 1 to 4 of appeal are hereby dismissed. 5. Ground No. 5 is general in nature and does not require

DCIT- CC 6 (4), Mumbai vs. Divya Sameer Gehlaut, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is PARTLY ALLOWED

ITA 1612/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyaldcit Cen. Circle – 6(4), R. No. 1925, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 ...... Appellant Vs. Smt. Divya Sameer Gehlaut 17Th Floor, Tower-1, India Bulls Finance Centre, Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Road, Mumbai-400 013 Pan – Ajbpg2722R ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal & Om Kandalgaokar, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Riddhi Mishra, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 250Section 54Section 54F

Capital Gain Account Scheme as notified by the Government before the due date of filing of the return of income under section 139(1) and further if the assessee not utilized wholly or partly the said amount deposited in the capital gain account for purchase or construction of new asset

Chemical Process Piping Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 2045/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2045/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Chemical Process Piping बिधम/ Acit, Circle-14(1)(2) Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Vs. Ground Floor, Cpe Plot, Road, Mumbai-400020. Bsd Marg, Govandi, Mumbai-400088. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccc6212D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar Revenue By: Shri Samual Pitta (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 23/06/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 27/07/2023 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. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 26.08.2021 For Ay. 2019-20. 2. It Is Noted That This Captioned Appeal Was Allowed In The First Round By This Tribunal Vide Order Dated 31.05.2022. However, The Same Has Been Recalled In Ma No. 428/Mum/2022 In The Light Of The Hon’Ble Supreme Court Decision In The Case Of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cit (448 Itr 518). Therefore, This Appeal Is Adjudicated Afresh. The Main Grievance Of Assessee Is Against The Action Of Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Disallowance Of Employee’S Contribution Made Towards Pf/Esi To The Tune Of Rs.8,12,924/-. 3. Despite Notice Of Hearing, None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Therefore, We Proceed To Dispose Of This Appeal After Hearing The Ld. Dr. From A Perusal Of The Records, It Is Discerned That The Cpc Bangalore Passed The Intimation Order U/S 143(1) Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) & Made Adjustment Of Rs. 8,12,924/- U/S 36(1)(Va) R.W.S. 2(24)(X) Of The Act For Late Deposit Of Employee’S

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Kumar SutharFor Respondent: Shri Samual Pitta (Sr. AR)
Section 10ASection 139Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, AM

Anuj Yadav Lh Late Shri Dafedar Singh Yadav, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-49(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 362/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Chandra Mohan Garg & Sh. Pradip Kumar Kediaanuj Yadav Lh Late Shri Vs. Ito Dafedar Singh Yadav Ward – 49(1) Rzf-769/1, Street No.9, New Delhi Raj Nagar, Part-Ii, Palam Colony, Delhi – 110 045 Pan No. Aarpy 6302 Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Krishna Kumar, C.A. Revenue By Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 27.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.07.2023

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 submitted that