← 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)

DCIT, CC-2, Jaipur vs. M/S. Royal Jewellers, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 176/JPR/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal(CIT)&
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

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

DCIT, CC-2, Jaipur vs. M/S. Royal Jewellers, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 175/JPR/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal(CIT)&
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

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

DCIT, CC-2, Jaipur vs. M/S. Royal Jewellers, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 174/JPR/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal(CIT)&
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

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

DCIT, CC-2, Jaipur vs. M/S. Royal Jewellers, Jaipur

In the result, appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 173/JPR/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT) &
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 158B

Reliance Industries Ltd. [2004] 88 ITD 273 (Mum.) (SB). The said claim was not made in the original return filed under Section 139(1) of the Act and it was contended that such claim can be made in the return filed in response to notice under Section 153A

DCIT, CC-2, Jaipur vs. M/S. Royal Jewellers, Jaipur

In the result, appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 172/JPR/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT) &
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 158B

Reliance Industries Ltd. [2004] 88 ITD 273 (Mum.) (SB). The said claim was not made in the original return filed under Section 139(1) of the Act and it was contended that such claim can be made in the return filed in response to notice under Section 153A

DCIT, CC-2, Jaipur vs. M/S. Royal Jewellers, Jaipur

In the result, appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 171/JPR/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT) &
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 158B

Reliance Industries Ltd. [2004] 88 ITD 273 (Mum.) (SB). The said claim was not made in the original return filed under Section 139(1) of the Act and it was contended that such claim can be made in the return filed in response to notice under Section 153A

M/S. Royal Jewellers, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 115/JPR/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal(CIT)&
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

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

M/S. Royal Jewellers, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 114/JPR/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal(CIT)&
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

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

M/S. Royal Jewellers, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 113/JPR/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal(CIT)&
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

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

Shri Jitendra Kumar Agarwal, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result, based on the discussion so recorded here in above both

ITA 111/JPR/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT) &
Section 132Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 68

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

Shri Jitendra Kumar Agarwal, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result, based on the discussion so recorded here in above both

ITA 110/JPR/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT) &
Section 132Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 68

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

Shri Jitendra Kumar Agarwal, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result, based on the discussion so recorded here in above both

ITA 109/JPR/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT) &
Section 132Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 68

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

Shri Jitendra Kumar Agarwal, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result, based on the discussion so recorded here in above both

ITA 108/JPR/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT) &
Section 132Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 68

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

Shri Jitendra Kumar Agarwal, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result, based on the discussion so recorded here in above both

ITA 107/JPR/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT) &
Section 132Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 68

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

Shri Jitendra Kumar Agarwal, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result, based on the discussion so recorded here in above both

ITA 106/JPR/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT) &
Section 132Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 68

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

Thattantavita Asharaf, Vadakara vs. Income Tax Officer Ward2(2), Kozhikode

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

ITA 900/COCH/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 900/Coch/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Thattantavita Asharaf बनाम/ Ito, Ward-2(2) 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Thattantavita House, P.O, Vs. Thuneri, Vadakara, North Block, Mananchira, Kozhikode District-673514. Kozhikode-673001. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aivpa7829G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""थ" / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri R. Krishnan Revenue By: Smt J. M Jamuna Devi, (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 16/05/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/06/2023 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 Dated 22.07.2022 For Ay. 2011-12. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Imposition Of Penalty U/S 271F Of The Income Tax Act, 1969 (Hereinafter “The Act”) On The Ground Of Failure To Furnish Return Of Income (Roi) As Required U/S 139(1) Or Proviso To That Sub-Section. In This Case, The Assessee Had Filed Return Of Income Belatedly On 28.03.2013 Reflecting An Income Of Rs.3,72,410/- Whereas As Per Section 139(1) Of The Act Assessee Was To File The Return Of Income On 31.07.2011 (And U/S 139(4) By 31.03.2012). 3. The Ao Before Imposing The Penalty Of Rs.5000/- U/S 271F Of The Act Had Issued Notice Dated 21.12.2018 & After Giving Opportunity To Assessee Has Imposed Penalty On 12.03.2019. 2 A.Ys. 2012-12 Thattantavita Asharaf

For Appellant: Shri R. KrishnanFor Respondent: Smt J. M Jamuna Devi, (Sr. AR)
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 271FSection 273B

this case, the assessee had filed return of income belatedly on 28.03.2013 reflecting an income of Rs.3,72,410/- whereas as per section 139(1) of the Act assessee was to file the return of income on 31.07.2011 (and u/s 139(4) by 31.03.2012). 3. The AO before imposing

Qayum Imail Mukaddam, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Delhi

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

ITA 43/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Qayum Ismail Mukaddam Cit(Appeal) 534/D Garden Colony S6, Soonawala Nfac, New Delhi Vs. Agiary Marg, Mahim, Mumbai-400 016

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM Qayum

ACIT, Central Circle-3, Patna vs. Subhash Pd. Yadav, Patna

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 97/PAT/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna02 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 139Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 275

ITA No. 97/PAT/2021 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Subhash Pd. Yadav IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA-PATNA ‘e-COURT

Canadian Speciality Vinyls, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 63(4), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7612/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & M.Balaganeshassessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Canadian Specialty Vinyls Ito Ward-63(4), Delhi 110055 49, Rani Janshi Road, Jhandewalan, New Delhi 110055 Vs. Pan Aagfc 0200 J

For Appellant: Shri Shaantanu Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Maimum Alam, Sr. DR
Section 2Section 801CSection 80I

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: B: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND M.BALAGANESH

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. the Fertilizer Corporation of India, Noida

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for A

ITA 3357/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms Sarita Kumari, CIT, DR
Section 143Section 143(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : E BENCH : DELHI BEFORE SHRI C.M. GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI M