“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)

Bec Projects Limited, Bhilai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1), Bhilai

ITA 88/RPR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur30 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Nilesh Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR

Section 36(1)(va)

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

Smt. Kusumben Amritlal Sanghavi, Jamnagar vs. The DCIT, Circle, Jamnagar

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 194/RJT/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 194/Rjt/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16) Smt. Kusumben Amritlal Dy. Commissioner Of बनाम/ Sanghavi Income Tax Vs. C/O. Kantilal & Circle-2, Jamnagar - Brothers, Grain Market, 361008 Jamnagar - 361001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Afhps5412C .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri D. S. Varia, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से / Shri B. D. Gupta, Sr.D.R. Respondent By : सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of 06/04/2023 Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of 30/05/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy - Jm: The Instant Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 25.06.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Jamnagar (‘The Cit(A)’), Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Dated 30.06.2017 Passed By The Learned Dcit, Circle-2, Jamnagar Under Section

For Appellant: Shri D. S. Varia, A.R

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54F

invested the fund into capital gain scheme before purchase of the residential property before filing of the return of income under Section 139(1) of the Act. The case of the Revenue is this that the appellant is not entitled for ITA No. 194/Rjt/2019 (Smt. Kusumben A. Sanghavi vs. DCIT ... since the unutilized amount was not deposited by him before the due date of filing of return of income under Section 139(1) of the Act. On this aspect, both the authorities below relied upon the judgment passed in the matter of Suleman Merchant passed by the Hon’ble High

Manju Singh, Kota vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Kota

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 56/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.

For Appellant: Shri Nikhlesh Kataria, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Manisha Choudhary, Addl.CIT

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)

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

Prashant Chandra Sadh, Mumbai vs. ITO International Tax-4(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 619/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleprashant Chandrasadh, Ito,(Intltax),C4(2)(1), C-1804, Oberoi Woods, Room.No.1708, बनाम/ Off Western Express Air India Building, Vs. Highway,Goregaon East, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400063. Mumba-400021. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Biips5544N (""थ" / Respondent) (अपीलाथ" /Appellant)

For Appellant: Ms.Kinjal Bhuta.ARFor Respondent: Mr.Soumendu Kumar Dash.DR

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 194ISection 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH MUMBAI. BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL

Smt. Satvir Kaur W/O Sh. Shinder Singh, Ferozepur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Amritsar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 102/ASR/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar29 May 2023AY 2011-12

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

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263

Oriental Bank of Commerce during the financial year 2010-11 and that no return had been filed for the year under consideration under section 139(1) of the Act. 3. That the proposal for revision of assessment, order dated 26.12.2018 was submitted by the erstwhile Income Tax Officer, Ward

ITO(E), Ward- 1(3), New Delhi vs. Centre for Health and Social Justice, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1308/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri M.Balaganeshassessment Year: 2019-20 Ito (E), Ward-1(3), New Delhi Centre For Health & Social Justice, G-Block, Saket, New Delhi 110017 Vs. Pan Aaatc 7866 L

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Chaturvedi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vipul Kashyap, Sr.DR

Section 11

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

Jaypee Infra Ventures Pvt. Ltd., Noida vs. DCIT, Circle-13(2), New Delhi

Accordingly these grounds in hand deserve to be allowed with a direction to the Ld

ITA 4582/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No. 4582/Del/2018 , A.Y. 2012-13 Jaypee Infra Ventures Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, (Erstwhile Known As Jaypee Infra Circle-13(2), Ventures) New Delhi (A Private Company With Unlimited Liability) Sector 128, Noida- 201304, Up Pan : Aaccj5628G Appellant Respondent

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 14A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘C’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SH. G.S.PANNU, HON’BLE PRESIDENT AND SH. ANUBHAV

DCIT, Circle-13(2), New Delhi vs. Jaypee Infra Ventures, Noida

Accordingly these grounds in hand deserve to be allowed with a direction to the Ld

ITA 4435/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2023AY 2012-13

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 14A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘C’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SH. G.S.PANNU, HON’BLE PRESIDENT AND SH. ANUBHAV

Arun Kumar Verma, Bhilai, Durg vs. Income Tax Officer 1(2), Bhilai, Durg

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed in terms of my aforesaid observations

ITA 80/RPR/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur29 May 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.79 & 80/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2018-19 & 2019-2020 Arun Kumar Verma Plot No.152, Telgu Para, Maroda Tank, Maroda, Bhilai (C.G.) Pan : Abkpv0530H .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(2), Raipur (C.G.). ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Puja Bajaj, CAFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR

Section 139Section 142Section 143(1)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ “एक-सद"य” मामला रायपुर म" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH

Arun Kumar Verma, Bhilai, Durg vs. Income Tax Officer 1(2), Bhilai, Durg

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed in terms of my aforesaid observations

ITA 79/RPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur29 May 2023AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Ms. Puja Bajaj, CAFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR

Section 139Section 142Section 143(1)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ “एक-सद"य” मामला रायपुर म" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH

Sai Kripa Trading, Pvt. Ltd, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Raipur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of the aforesaid observations

ITA 119/RPR/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur29 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.119/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Sai Kripa Trading Pvt. Ltd. G-11, Anupam Nagar, Behind Tv Tower, Shankar Nagar Ward, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan : Aaics1638P .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Raipur (C.G.). ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 139(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ “एक-सद"य” मामला रायपुर म" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH

Santosh Kumar Nishad, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Raipur

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed in terms of my aforesaid observations

ITA 108/RPR/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur29 May 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 107 & 108/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2018-19 & 2019-2020 Santosh Kumar Nishad Mandhar, Mohadi, Tehsil : Dharsiwa, Raipur-493 111 (C.G.) Pan : Agfpn5475R .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(1), Raipur (C.G.). ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)

appreciate the fact that the impugned amount of Rs.4,36,101.00 were duly paid before the due date of section 139(1). 2. That other ground shall be pressed at the time of hearing.” 3. Succinctly stated, the assessee who is a proprietor of a concern engaged in business

Santosh Kumar Nishad, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Raipur

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed in terms of my aforesaid observations

ITA 107/RPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur29 May 2023AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)

Maruti Clean Coal and Power Ltd., Raipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur-1, Raipur

ITA 91/RPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur29 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 91/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Maruti Clean Coal & Power Limited Ward No. 42, Building No.14, Civil Lines Near Income Tax Colony Raipur(C.G.) Pan : Aadcm4810C .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Raipur-1 (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri V.K.Singh, CIT-DR

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

that no disallowance is called for where employee's share of contribution is paid before the due date of filing the return under Section 139(1) of the Act. Therefore, the disallowance, as suggested by PCIT amounting to Rs. 22,41,8327-, has been correctly not made by AO under

Shri Bhavesh Bhuva, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 3(3)(1), Surat

In the result, ground No. 2(i) of the appeal is allowed

ITA 235/SRT/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.235/Srt/2022 (Ay 2012-13) (Hearing In Physical Court) Bhavesh Bhuva Income Tax Officer, C-51, Khodiyar Nagar Ward-3(3)(1), Surat, Income Vs Society, Nr. Chikoo Tax Office, Aaykar Bhavan, Wadi, Nana Varachha, Anavil Business Centre, Surat-395006 Hazira Road, Adajan, Pan No: Antpb 8989 P Surat-395007 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Ms. Chaitali Shah, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 25.05.2023 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 29.05.2023 Pronouncement Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh: 1. This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [For Short To As “Nfac/Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 10.06.2022 For Assessment Year 2012-13, Which In Turn Arises From The Addition Made By The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(1), Surat / Assessing Officer In Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S.147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 26.11.2019. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- Bhavesh Bhuva “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Cit(A), Nfac Has Grossly Erred In Passing The Impugned Appellate Order On An Ex-Parte Basis, By Erroneously Holding That The Appellant Is Not Interested In Pursuing The Appeal, When The Fact Is That The Appellant Has Made Detailed Submissions In Form No.35 Itself, Which Ought To Have Been Considered By The Learned Cit(A), Nfac While Passing The Impugned Order. Therefore, The Appellate Order Of The Learned Cit(A), Nfac Being Passed On An Ex-Parte Basis, Needs To Be Quashed As Being Erroneous, Illegal & Bad-In-Law.

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 69

notice was issued by Income Tax Officer Ward-(3)(3)(1) and assessee has furnished return on 31.03.2013 within due date prescribed under section 139(1) of the Act. Therefore, reasons recorded are incorrect. The Assessing Officer made re-opening for verification of cash deposit. The reasons recorded was erroneous

M/S.U.S.Roofs Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT-10(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed, while the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1960/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 May 2023AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal a/wFor Respondent: Shri Ankush Kapoor

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

whichever is earlier :” 15. In the present case, since the assessee did not furnish its return of income within the time allowed under section 139(1), therefore, as per section 139(4) of the Act, the assessee had time till 31/03/2011 to furnish its return of income, i.e. one year

Jt.Commissioner of Income Tax 15(3)2, (OSD), Mumbai vs. M/S.U.S.Roofs Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed, while the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1196/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 May 2023AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal a/wFor Respondent: Shri Ankush Kapoor

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

Stratejic Manufactures India LLP, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 38(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 1942/DEL/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 May 2023AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Ms. Rano Jain, Adv. & Ms. Mansi Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 151

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: SMC: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year

Sodhani Sweet Private Limited, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Circle-6, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 383/JPR/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 May 2023AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Shri Mohit Khandelwal (Adv.) &For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl. CIT)

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

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 13(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Sodexo Facilities Management Services India Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2945/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Ms.Kavitha Rajagopaldcit, Sodexo Facilities Circle-13(2)(2), Management Services बनाम/ Mumbai. India Pvt.Ltd., 1St Floor, Vs. Gemstar Commercial Complex, Ramchandra Lane, Extension Kanchpada, Malad West, Mumbai-400064. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. :Aabcs4166M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri A.N.Bhalekar, Sr.Ar ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Mrunal Parekh सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 16/05/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 25/05/2023 आदेश / Order Per Om Prakash Kant- Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.09.2022 Passed By Ld Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“In Short The Ld. Cit(A)”]For Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2012-13, Raised Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Shri A.N.Bhalekar, Sr.ARFor Respondent: Shri Mrunal Parekh

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)Section 43(6)(c)Section 50B(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH“G”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & MS.KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JUDICIAL