← 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)

Modlite Communications, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-27(1), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 2828/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2828/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 बनाम Modlite Communications Ito Plot No.1, 20, Pocket-H, Vs. Ward 27(1) Sector-4, Bawana Industrial Delhi. Area, New Delhi. Pan No. Abdfm7334D अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 139(1)Section 250Section 40

I.T.A.No.2828/Del/2022 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Sh Barinderjit Singh L/H of Smt Ranjit Kaur, Kapurthala vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Kapurthala

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 184/ASR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar26 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

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

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 27Section 271FSection 274Section 56

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

Sh Barinderjit Singh L/H of Smt Ranjit Kaur, Kapurthala vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Kapurthala

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 183/ASR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar26 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

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

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 27Section 271FSection 274Section 56

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

Sh Barindejit Singh L/H of Smt. Ranjit Kaur, Kapurthala vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Kapurthala

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 182/ASR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar26 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

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

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 27Section 271FSection 274Section 56

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

Sh Barinderjit Singh L/H of Smt Ranjit Kaur, Kapurthala vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Kapurthala

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 181/ASR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar26 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

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

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 27Section 271FSection 274Section 56

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

Sh Barinderjit Singh L/H of Smt. Ranjit Kaur, Kapurthala vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Kapurthala

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 180/ASR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar26 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

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

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 27Section 271FSection 274Section 56

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

Sh Barinderjit Singh L/H of Smt Ranjit Kaur, Kapurthala vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Kapurthala

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 179/ASR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar26 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

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

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 27Section 271FSection 274Section 56

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

Sh Barinderjit Singh L/H of Smt. Ranjit Kaur, Kapurthala vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Kapurthala

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 178/ASR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar26 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

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

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 27Section 271FSection 274Section 56

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

Sh Barinderjit Singh L/H of Smt. Ranjit Kaur, Kapurthala vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Kapurthala

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 177/ASR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar26 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

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

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 27Section 271FSection 274Section 56

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

Sh. Barinderjit Singh L/H of Smt. Ranjit Kaur, Kapurthala vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Kapurthala

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 176/ASR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar26 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

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

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 27Section 271FSection 274Section 56

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

Sh. Barinderjit Singh L/H of Smt. Ranjit Kaur, Kapurthala vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Kapurthala

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 175/ASR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar26 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

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

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 27Section 271FSection 274Section 56

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

Welgrow Hotels Concepts P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-27(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 436/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2018-19 Welgrow Hotels Concepts P. Ltd., Vs Ito, B-6, Geetanjali Enclave, Ward-27(1), Malviya Nagar, New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 017. Pan: Aaacw5407C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S. Krishnan, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2023 Order Per M. Balaganesh, Am: This Appeal In Ita No.436/Del/2023 For Ay 2018-19 Arises Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Cit(A)’, In Short] In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1048179868(1) Dated 22.12.2022 Against The Order Of Assessment Passed U/S 154 R.W.S. 143(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 02.12.2020 By The Ld. Assessing Officer, Ward 27(1), New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Ao’). 2. The Only Issue To Be Decided In This Appeal Is As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Was Justified In Confirming The Disallowance Made On Account Of Employee’S Contribution Of Provident Fund & Employee State Insurance In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Instant Case.

For Appellant: Shri S. Krishnan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : H : DELHI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA

F I L Industries Private Limited, Srinagar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Jammu

The appeal of the assessee is disposed off in the terms indicated as above

ITA 72/ASR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Ratinder Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 40Section 80I

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

Ours Youth Club, Vizianagaram vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Vizianagaram

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 22/VIZ/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam24 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.22/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Ours Youth Club Vs. Income Tax Officer 1-19-17, Bc Colony Agraharam Ward-1 Vizianagaram Vijayanagaram [Pan : Aaaao2600H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri C.Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, DR
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

आयकरअपीलीयअधिकरण, धिशाखापटणम “एसएमसी”पीठ, धिशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM “SMC” BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM श्री दुव्वूरु आर एल रेड्डी

Swami Sivananda Vidya Mandir Trust, Cuttack vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengalur

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 90/CTK/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack21 Jul 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Girish Agrawalwalassessment Year : 2020-2021 2021 Swami Swami Sivananda Sivananda Bidya Bidya Vs. Adit, Cpc, Bengalur Adit, Cpc, Bengalur Mandir Trust, Pithapur Road, Mandir Trust, Pithapur Road, Cuttack Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aalts 0050 R (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Braja Kishore Mohapatra : Shri Braja Kishore Mohapatra, Adv Revenue By Revenue By : Shri Saroj Kumar Mahapatra, : Shri Saroj Kumar Mahapatra, Pr. Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 21/07 7/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/0 /07/2023 O R D E R Per Bench

For Appellant: Shri Braja Kishore MohapatraFor Respondent: Shri Saroj Kumar Mahapatra
Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH

Bijender Lather, Sonipat vs. ITO, Ward-1, Sonipat

Appeal are allowed

ITA 1377/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year: 2017-18

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 272A(1)(d)

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER [Assessment Year

Sri Dattatreya Sai Ashram Trust, Bhubaneswar vs. ACIT Exemption Circle, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 40/CTK/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack20 Jul 2023AY 2020-21
For Appellant: Shri S.K.Sarangi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Saroj Kumar Mahapatra, Pr.CIT-DR
Section 1Section 11Section 12ASection 139Section 143(1)

आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण, कटक न्यायऩीठ,कटक IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK (THROUGH VIRTUAL HEARING) BEFORE SHRI

Sahakari Ganna Vikas Samiti, Uttar Pradesh vs. ITO-2(5) Chandausi, Uttar Pradesh

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2090/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Pradip Kumar Kediasahakari Ganna Vikas Vs. Ito-2(5), Samiti, Sikri Gate Chandausi Chandausi, Sambhal, Uttar Pradesh Uttar Pradesh-244 412 Pan No. Aaaaf 1459 L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Fuzail Ahmad Ayyubi, Adv. Revenue By Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 19.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.07.2023

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(1)(v)Section 154Section 80ASection 80P

that the assessee has not filed the return of income within the due Sahakari Ganna Vikas Samiti vs. ITO 2 date specified under Section 139(1) of the Act for the A.Y. 2019-20 in question. 3. When the matter was called for hearing, the Learned Counsel submitted that ... fully justified in denying Sahakari Ganna Vikas Samiti vs. ITO 3 the deduction where the return was filed beyond the date specified under Section 139(1) of the Act. Learned DR thus submitted that no interference with the order of CIT(A) is called for. 5. We have carefully considered

Chakargadh Seva Sahakari Mandali Ltd., Chakargadh Seva, Dist. Amreli vs. The DCIT(CPC), Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 187/RJT/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot19 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri D.M. Rindani, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, Ld. Sr. D.R
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 30Section 80Section 801

return of income under section 80P of the Act, since the return of income was not filed within the due date prescribed under section 139(1) of the Act. 4. The assessee filed appeal against the order of Ld. CIT(A), who dismissed assessee’s appeal with the following observations ... clearly evident that deductions u/s 80P is not allowable if the return is not filed within the stipulated time mentioned in section 139(1) of the Act. Reliance is placed in the case of Bal Kishan Dhawan (HUF) VS. ITO reported in (2012) 18 Taxmann.com 234 (in which the claim

DCIT Central Circle Ajmer, Ajmer vs. Yashwant Kumar Sharma, Ajmer

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross

ITA 210/JPR/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Jul 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 210/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2020-21 DCIT, Central Circle, Ajmer cuke Vs. Yashwant Kumar Sharma F-108, Industrial Area, Makhupura Parbatpura, Ajmer LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ASWPS 3791 E vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@C.O. No. 04/JP/2023 (Arising out of ITA Nos. 210/JP/2023) fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2020-21 Yashwant Kumar Sharma

For Appellant: Sh. C. M. Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. James Kurian (CIT) &
Section 139(1)Section 271ASection 274

assessee and jewellery at the residence of the assessee were found and seized. The assessee filed his return of income under section 139(1) on 2nd September, 2015 declaring total income including the surrender of additional income. It is held that the show cause notice issued by the AO without ... based on the entries in the diary regarding investment in real estate. The due date of filing of return of income under section 139(1) was 30th September, 2015. It is undisputed fact that the assessee is an Individual and was not maintaining regular books of account. Therefore, the transactions