← 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)

M/S. Scantech Laser Pvt. Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Cir 15(3) (2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1968/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing M/S. Scantech Laser Pvt. Ltd Of Return U/S.139(1). In Both The Years Prima Facie Adjustments Have Been Made U/S.143(1) Disallowing The Payment Of Employees Pf & Esic U/S. 36(1)(Va) On The Ground That Same Has Been Paid After Due Date Prescribed Of The Respective Acts.

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘E‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

M/S. Scantech Laser Pvt. Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Cir 15(3) (2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1967/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing M/S. Scantech Laser Pvt. Ltd Of Return U/S.139(1). In Both The Years Prima Facie Adjustments Have Been Made U/S.143(1) Disallowing The Payment Of Employees Pf & Esic U/S. 36(1)(Va) On The Ground That Same Has Been Paid After Due Date Prescribed Of The Respective Acts.

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘E‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Shri Sham Lal & Sons, Amritsar vs. Principal Commissioner of Inome Tax Central, Ludhiana

In the result, appeal of the assessee ITA No

ITA 103/ASR/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar18 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

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

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

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

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, (Central)-I, Raipur vs. Mesers Chhattisgarh Steel & Power Limited, Raipur

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 92/RPR/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.91 & 92/Rpr/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Chhattisgarh Steel & Power Limited. 142, Sahid Smarak, G.E Road, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aaccc7479G ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Puja Bajaj, CAFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 40

cess or fee even after the closing of the accounting year but before the date of filing of the return of income under Section 139(1) of the Act, the assessee(s) would be entitled to deduction under Section 43-B on actual payment basis and such deduction would

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-I, Raipur vs. Mesers Chhattisgarh Steel & Power Limited, Raipur

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 91/RPR/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.91 & 92/Rpr/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Chhattisgarh Steel & Power Limited. 142, Sahid Smarak, G.E Road, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aaccc7479G ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Puja Bajaj, CAFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 40

cess or fee even after the closing of the accounting year but before the date of filing of the return of income under Section 139(1) of the Act, the assessee(s) would be entitled to deduction under Section 43-B on actual payment basis and such deduction would

Mrs. Meena Mangilal Sharma ( Wife and Legal Heir of Late Mr. Mangilal C. Sharma), Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 30(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1584/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jul 2023AY 2016-17
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 271FSection 273B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘D‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Shri Deepak Setia, Jalandhar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Jalandhar

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

ITA 112/ASR/2023[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar17 Jul 2023AY 2019-2020

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.112/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2019-20

Section 115BSection 133ASection 139(1)Section 144Section 250Section 68Section 69A

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

Guntubolu Uma Sai Prasad, Visakhapatnam vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 97/VIZ/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam17 Jul 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri I. Kama Sastry, ARFor Respondent: Sri ON Hari Prasada Rao
Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)

आयकर अपील"यअ"धकरण, "वशाखापटणम पीठ, "वशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM "ी दु"वू" आर एल

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam vs. Guntubolu Uma Sai Prasad, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 227/VIZ/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam17 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri I. Kama Sastry, ARFor Respondent: Sri ON Hari Prasada Rao
Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)

आयकर अपील"यअ"धकरण, "वशाखापटणम पीठ, "वशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM "ी दु"वू" आर एल

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam vs. Guntubolu Uma Sai Prasad, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 226/VIZ/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam17 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri I. Kama Sastry, ARFor Respondent: Sri ON Hari Prasada Rao
Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)

आयकर अपील"यअ"धकरण, "वशाखापटणम पीठ, "वशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM "ी दु"वू" आर एल

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1), Raipur vs. Psa Construction, Raipur

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 145/RPR/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

For Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 145(3)Section 250(4)Section 253

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, रायपुर "यायपीठ, रायपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR "ी र"वश सूद, "याियक सद

Mukesh Pathak, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 6(2), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 295/JPR/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh, Addl. CIT
Section 139(1)Section 144Section 271Section 271ASection 271BSection 271F

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

Macro Proprieties Private Limited, M 28 Income Tax Colony Tonk Road Jaipur vs. DCIT Central Circle 2, Lic Building Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 174/JPR/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Jul 2023AY 2013-2014

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No.174 TO 177/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear : 2013-14 TO 2016-17 M/s. Macro Properties Pvt. Ltd.M-28, Income Tax Colony, Tonk Road Jaipur cuke Vs. The DCIT Central Circle-2 LIC Building, Jaipur LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAFCM 3633 D vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri C.M. Agarwal, CA jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Shri JameshKurian, CI

For Appellant: Shri C.M. Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri JameshKurian, CIT
Section 153CSection 50C(1)Section 69

आयकरअपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुरन्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh]U;kf

Ambibuzz Technologies LLP, Mumbai vs. ITO, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 1084/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jul 2023AY 2020-21
For Appellant: Shri Rajesh SanghviFor Respondent: Shri Dharmvir D Yadav (Sr. DR)
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 90

have specifically provided that the FTC would be disallowed if the assessee does not file Form 67 within the due date prescribed under section 139(1) of the Act. It was submitted that that there are many sections in the Act which specifically deny deduction or exemption or relief

Shri Nirmal Singh S/O Shri Niranjan Singh, Faridkot vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Faridkot

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for

ITA 52/ASR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar14 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Sh. J. K. Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Ratinder Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 144Section 148

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

Shri Nirmal Singh S/ O Shri Niranjan Singh, Faridkot vs. Income Tax Officer Ward -3 (4), Faridkot

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for

ITA 51/ASR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar14 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Sh. J. K. Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Ratinder Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 144Section 148

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

Sionc Pharmaceuticals Private Limited, Visakhapatnam vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 40/VIZ/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam14 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.40/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2019-20) Sionc Pharmaceuticals Private Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of D.No.43-11-56, Subbalakshminagar Income Railway New Colony Circle-3(1) Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aalcs7973C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

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

आयकरअपीलीयअधिकरण, धिशाखापटणम पीठ, धिशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM श्री दुव्वूरु आर एल रेड्डी, न्याधयक सदस्य

Fishery Survey of India Employees Cooperative Credit and Thrift Society, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, the grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 23/VIZ/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam14 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.23/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2019-20) Fishery Survey Of India Employees Vs. Income Tax Officer Cooperative Credit & Thrift Ward-1(1) Society Visakhapatnam Fishing Harbour Complex Beach Road, Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aafat3533M] अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri C Subrahmanyam, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 27.04.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14.07.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1048861637(1) Dated 17.01.2023 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2019-20, Arising Out Of The Order Passed U/S 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘Act’) Dated 24.12.2020. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, A Society Registered Under The Co-Operative Society Act Had Filed It’S Return Of Income On 2

For Appellant: Shri C Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, DR
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 80P

return of income was filed on 17.11.2020, within the exctended time u/s 139(4) of the Act, which is an extension of section 139(1). The Ld.AR further contended that there was no provision incorporated u/s 143(1) of the Act to resort to adjustment on the claim of deduction

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1(1), Panaji vs. Shri Edgar Braz Afonso, Calangute

Appeals of the Revenue are DISMISSED

ITA 98/PAN/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji13 Jul 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S S Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali(Through Virtual Hearing) Sr

For Appellant: Shri Milind KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri Prabhakar Anand DJ
Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 2(22)(e)Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

॥ आयकर अपीलीय न्यायाधिकरण, पणजी न्यायपीठ, पणजी में॥ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PANAJI BENCH, PANAJI BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1(1), Panaji vs. Shri Edgar Braz Afonso, Calangute

Appeals of the Revenue are DISMISSED

ITA 97/PAN/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji13 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S S Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali(Through Virtual Hearing) Sr

For Appellant: Shri Milind KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri Prabhakar Anand DJ
Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 2(22)(e)Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

॥ आयकर अपीलीय न्यायाधिकरण, पणजी न्यायपीठ, पणजी में॥ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PANAJI BENCH, PANAJI BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI