“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)

Elcon (India), New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-29(1), Delhi

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 306/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2020-21

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 43B

amount was paid 2 | P a g e AY: 2020-21 before the due date of filing of return of income under section 139(1) of the Act. Having verified the aforesaid factual position, the CPC deleted the adjustment in the rectification order passed under section

Sadakat Ali, Prop S P Enterprises, Sonipat vs. ITO, Ward-4, Sonipat

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 1709/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

claimed has to be 4 ITA No.1709/Del./2022 allowed as the payments were made before the due date of filing of return under Section 139(1) of the Act. 8. In my view, the aforesaid claim of the assessee cannot be accepted in view of the decision ... deduction under Section 43B of the Act, even if, such payments are made before the due date of return of income under Section 139(1) of the Act. While laying down such ratio, Hon'ble Supreme Court has carved out difference between employees’ contribution and employer’s contribution

Sathi Trinatha Reddy, East Godavari Dist vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax(Central), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 8/VIZ/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Sri MV Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263Section 54FSection 54F(1)Section 54F(4)

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, Central Circle -2, Surat vs. M/S Vasant Fabrics Pvt. Ltd., Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 229/SRT/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.229/Srt/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Physical Court Hearing) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income- M/S Vasant Fabrics Pvt. Ltd., Tax, Central Circle-2, Room Plot No. 146, Gidc, Pandesara, Vs. 5Th No.505, Floor, Aaykar Surat-394210 Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat- 395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcv 5908 Q (अपीलाथ" /Appellant ) (""थ" /Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar– Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 154

through the order of ld CIT(A) carefully. We find that there is no dispute that assessee while filing return of income under section 139(1) on 27.09.2011 declared income of Rs.1.76 crores. However, in response to notice under section 153A the assessee offered / declared income at Rs.2.07 crores. Thus

Agrawal Infrabuild Private Limited, Raipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-II, Raipur

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 11/RPR/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur30 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita Nos.10 & 11/Rpr/2020 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014 & 2014-2015) Agrawal Infrabuild Private Limited, Vs Acit, Central Circle-Ii, Raipur 1St Floor, V.R.Plaza, Bilaspur Pan No. :Aafca 6636 C (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Nema & Gagan Tiwari, AdvsFor Respondent: Shri Debashish Lahiri, CIT-DR

Section 153A(1)Section 68

आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण, रायऩुर न्यायऩीठ, रायऩुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR श्री रविश सूद, न्याययक सदस्य

Agrawal Infrabuild Private Limited, Raipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-II, Raipur

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 10/RPR/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur30 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Nema & Gagan Tiwari, AdvsFor Respondent: Shri Debashish Lahiri, CIT-DR

Section 153A(1)Section 68

The Malappuram District Cooperative Bank Limited, Malappuram vs. ITO, Circle-1, Tirur

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

ITA 577/COCH/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Mar 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Padmavathy S.Assessment Year: 2018-19 The Malappuram District Co- Operative Bank Limited Head Office The Malappuram District Cooperative Bank Deputy Commissioner Malappuram Of Income-Tax Vs. Uphill Cpc Malappuram Bangalore Kerala 676 505 Pan No : Aaaat3207B Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Hameed Hussain, A.R. Respondent By : Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 11.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.03.2023 O R D E R Per Beena Pillai: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against Order Passed By Nfac Delhi Dated 9.11.2021 For Assessment Year 2018-19 On Following Grounds Of Appeal:- 1. “The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Is Opposed To Law & The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Grossly Erred Both In Law & On Facts In Adding The Pf Contribution Amounting To Rs. 59,24,494/- By Virtue 36(1)(Va) Of.The Income Tax Act. This Will Be Covered The Malappuram District Co-Operative Bank Limited, Malappuram

For Appellant: Shri Hameed Hussain, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 143(1)Section 2Section 30Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

ITA No.577/Coch/2022 The Malappuram District Co-operative Bank Limited, Malappuram IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH: COCHIN BEFORE SMT

Gridco Limited, Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-1(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 42/CTK/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack29 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: S/Shri George Mathan & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2014-15 Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Grid Corporation Of Vs. Dcit, Corporate Circle-1(1), Orissa Ltd. Janapath, Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No.Aabcg 5398 P (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : S/Shri Ved Jain/P.V.Rao, Ars Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Pr. Cit (Osd) Date Of Hearing : 29 /03/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 29 /03/2023 O R D E R

For Appellant: S/Shri Ved Jain/P.V.Rao, ARsFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, Pr. CIT (OSD)

Section 10BSection 10B(8)Section 139(1)Section 139(3)Section 139(5)Section 80

claiming carrying forward of losses subsequently would not help the assessee. In the present case, the assessee filed its original return under section 139(1) and not under section 139(3). Therefore, the Revenue is right in submitting that the revised return filed by the assessee under section 139 ... only substitute its original return under section 139(1) and cannot transform it into a return under section 139(3), in order to avail the benefit of carrying forward or set-off of any loss under section 80 of the IT Act. The assessee can file a revised return

M/S. Gridco Limited, Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-1(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 148/CTK/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack29 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

For Appellant: S/Shri Ved Jain/P.V.Rao, ARsFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, Pr. CIT (OSD)

Section 10BSection 10B(8)Section 139(1)Section 139(3)Section 139(5)Section 80

ACIT-Circle-3(1), Gurgaon vs. Teradata India Private Limited, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

ITA 1431/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Mar 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Yogesh Kumar Usasstt. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Teradata India Pvt. Income Tax, Circle – 3(1), Ltd., 301-302, Tower 4A, Gurugram S-Block Dlf Corporate Park, Dlf City Phase-Iii, Pan No. Aacct 6715 A Gurugram – 122 002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Akshay Uppal, Adv. Revenue By Ms. Sangeeta Yadav, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 29.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.03.2023 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 12.05.2022 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case As Culled Out From The Material On Record Are As Under :- Acit Vs. Teradata India Pvt Ltd. 2 3. Assessee Is A Company Who Had Filed Its Return Of Income On 27.11.2020 For A.Y. 2019-20 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.61,82,86,370 /-. In The Intimation Issued U/S 143(1) Of The Act By Cpc, Bangalore Vide Identification No. Cpc/1920/A6/2014289684 Dated 18.03.2021, The Total Income Was Determined At Rs. 66,49,98,020/- Inter Alia By Disallowing Rs.4,67,11,644/- U/S 36(1)(Va) On Account Of Delayed Deposit Of Employees Contribution Of Pf/Esi.

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(v)Section 36(1)(va)

case of the assessee before the authorities below has been that such payments before the due date as per section 139(1) of the Act amounts to sufficient compliance of the provisions in terms of section 43B of the Act, not calling for any disallowance. Per contra, the Department

Transnational Drilling & Minning Associates Private Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT CPC, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

ITA 1834/DEL/2020[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Mar 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Yogesh Kumar Ustransnational Drilling & Vs. Dcit Minning Associates Pvt. Cpc Ltd., Luv-303, Agrasen New Delhi Apartment, , Ip Extension, New Delhi-110 092 Pan No. Aadct 1249 C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By --None-- Revenue By Ms. Sangeeta Yadav, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 29.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.03.2023 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am : This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 15.09.2020 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-9, New Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case As Culled Out From The Material On Record Are As Under :-

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

Sagara Vikasa Mutually Aided Coop Thrift Society Ltd, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Visakhapatnam

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

ITA 235/VIZ/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam29 Mar 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.235/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19) Sagara Vikasa Mutually Aided Coop Vs. Income Tax Officer Thrift Society Ltd., Ward-2(1) Opp. Sun School Visakhapatnam Near Vuda Layout, Bheemunipatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aacas9620H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, DR

Section 10ASection 11Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 80P

which is 4 I.T.A. No.235/Viz/2022, A.Y.2018-19 Sagara Vikasa Mutually aided Coop Thrift Society Ltd., Visakhapatnam not an independent provision, but an extension of section 139(1) of the Act. The Ld.CIT(A) is not justified in upholding the disallowance of deduction made u/s 80P of the Act, since the income ... Court in the case of Trustees of Tulsidas Gopalji 207 ITR 368 and contended that section 139(4) is only an extension of section 139(1) of the Act, therefore, the delay in filing the return is to be condoned. The Ld.DR relied on the decision of coordinate bench

Naga Siva Kumar Kondri, Vijayawada vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, Centralized Processing Center, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 213/VIZ/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam29 Mar 2023AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Sri V. Balaji, ARFor Respondent: Sri ON Hari Prasada Rao

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 44A

Dayaram Yadav, Jaipur vs. CIT(A), NFAC

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 382/JPR/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Mar 2023AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri C. L. Yadav (C.A.) &For Respondent: Smt Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT) a

Section 253Section 253(5)Section 271(1)(b)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh

Vivek Kumar Batra, Jagdalpur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward- Jagdalpur, Bastar

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

ITA 232/RPR/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur27 Mar 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 232/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Vivek Kumar Batra 1, Geedam Road, Jagdalpur, Chhatisgarh-494 001 Pan : Adfpb7478M .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-Jagdalpur. ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri N.C Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 43BSection 44A

under: 26. (i)(b)(a) Paid on or before the due date for furnishing the return of income of the previous year under section 139(1) Section Nature of liability Amount Nil 26. (i)(B)(b) Not paid on or before the aforesaid date Section Nature of Liability Amount

Ganeshan Purushothaman Achari, Bhilai, Durg vs. Income Tax Officer-1(4), Bhilai, Durg

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 148/RPR/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur27 Mar 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 146 To 148/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 To 2019-20 Ganeshan Puroshothaman Achari 116, Friends Arcade, Shastri Nagar, G.E. Road, Supela, Bhilai (C.G.) Pan : Achpa6510E .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Cpc, Bengaluru. ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 36Section 43B

component was not paid off on or before the due date for furnishing the return in relation to the previous year under Section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act. The First Appellate Authority also noticed that it is an undisputed fact that the Appellant did not charge

Ganeshan Purushothaman Achari, Bhilai, Durg vs. Income Tax Officer-1(4), Bhilai, Durg

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 147/RPR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur27 Mar 2023AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 36Section 43B

Ganeshan Purushothaman Achari, Bhilai, Durg vs. Income Tax Officer-1(4), Bhilai, Durg

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 146/RPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur27 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 36Section 43B

Shri Shri Sushil Kumar Agrawal, Korba, Korba(Cg) vs. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range Korba, Korba(Cg)

In the result, appeal of the assesee in ITA No

ITA 94/BIL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur27 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 93 & 94/Rpr/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Shri Sushil Kumar Agrawal, Prop. Of M/S. Shrikishan & Co., T.P Nagar, Korba (C.G.) Pan : Acgpa4350B .......अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, Korba (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Y.K Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Choudhary N.C Roy, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 40Section 68

previous year has been paid on or before the last day of filing of return in accordance with the provisions of section 139(1) of the Income-tax Act for the said previous year. In case, the assessees are falling under the second category, no disallowance under section ... source and by paying the same to the credit of the Government before the due date of filing of their returns under section 139(1) of the Income-tax Act. The disability to claim deductions on account of such lately credited sum of TDS in assessment of the previous year

Shri Shri Sushil Kumar Agrawal, Korba, Korba(Cg) vs. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range Korba, Korba(Cg)

In the result, appeal of the assesee in ITA No

ITA 93/BIL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur27 Mar 2023AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Y.K Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Choudhary N.C Roy, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 40Section 68