← 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)

No 1431 Lemellepadu Primary Agricultural Co Op Society Limited, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3), Guntur

In the result, appeals of the assessees are dismissed

ITA 219/VIZ/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam08 Mar 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.255/Viz/2021 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19) Unagatla Large Sized Co-Operative Vs. Income Tax Officer Credit Society Ltd., Chagallu Mandal Ward-2 [Pan : Aaaau3979M] Tanuku आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.267/Viz/2021 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19) Raghunayaka Large Sized Co- Vs. Income Tax Officer Operative Credit Society Ltd., Ward-1 D.No.10-122, Near Ramalayam Tadepalligudem Chinnayyagudem West Godavari Dist. [Pan : Aaeat9533A] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 80P

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

Koodaranhi Regional Agricultural Welfare Co-Op Society Ltd, Kozhikkode vs. The ITO, Kozhikkode

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the stay petition is dismissed

ITA 953/COCH/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Mar 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.

For Appellant: Shri Johnson George, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. AR
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 80Section 80ASection 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)

provision containing section 80 AC of the act as to the filing of the return within the due date specified under section 139(1) of the act, in order to claim deduction under section SOP of the act, is only directory and not Mandatory. 5. The appellant is relying ... denial of deduction claimed by the assessee in case the assessee does not furnish its return of income within the date stipulated under section 139(1) of the Act. The Explanation to the said section specifically provides for cases/instances when the claim made by the assessee could be said

M/S.Mukkam Mega Multipurpose Co-Op Soceity Ltd, Kozhikkode vs. The ITO, Kozhikkode

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the stay petition is dismissed

ITA 952/COCH/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Mar 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.

For Appellant: Shri Johnson George, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. AR
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 80Section 80ASection 80PSection 80P(2)

provision containing section 80 AC of the act as to the filing of the return within the due date specified under section 139(1) of the act, in order to claim deduction under section SOP of the act, is only directory and not Mandatory. 5. The appellant is relying ... denial of deduction claimed by the assessee in case the assessee does not furnish its return of income within the date stipulated under section 139(1) of the Act. The Explanation to the said section specifically provides for cases/instances when the claim made by the assessee could be said

M/S Kanaka Polypack Private Limited, Aluva vs. ACIT Corporate Circle 1(1), Kochi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 876/COCH/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Mar 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year :2018-19 M/S. Kanaka Polypack Private Limited, Acit, Vs. Xvi, Keezhmad Panchayat, Corporate Circle - 1(1), Ashokapuram,Aluva, Kochi – 682 018. Ernakulam District, Kerala – 683 101. Pan :Aafck 1498 J Assessee Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. Manu Kurian, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. AR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 34(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH :COCHIN BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT

Kavungal Vareed Itteera, Kerala vs. ACIT, Ernakulam

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 855/COCH/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Mar 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.Assessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Anil D. Nair, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. AR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 3Section 34(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH : COCHIN BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Ms. PADMAVATHY S., ACCOUNTANT

Mr. Ranjith Thazhe Kunhambath, Ernakulam vs. ITO, Ward 3(3), Non Corporate Range 2, Kochi

In the result, the appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee and the stay petition is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 1000/COCH/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri. Paulson, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. AR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH :COCHIN BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT

Ashvin Narayan Bajoria HUF, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward1(2)(1), Surat

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by assessee is allowed

ITA 369/SRT/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat07 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

response to notice issued under section 148 of the Act. Such return is to be considered as return of income filed under section 139(1) for the purpose of penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) and penalty is to be levied on income assessed over and above return

K M Automobiles, Korba vs. Income Tax Officer -1, Korba

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 100/RPR/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur06 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 100/Rpr/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 K M Automobiles Plot No.187, Transport Nagar, Korba, Chhatisgarh-495 677 Pan: Aanfk0386L .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1, Korba (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)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 10 K M Automobiles Vs. ITO-1, Korba assessee(s) would be entitled to deduction under Section

Parsben Jivanbhai Vadhiya, Surat vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -2(3), Surat

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assesse is allowed

ITA 47/SRT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.47/Srt/2023 (Ay 2017-18) (Hearing In Virtual Court) Parasben Jivanbhai Vadhiya Deputy Commissioner Of 1, Village Budhaleshwar, Tal. Income-Tax, Circle-(3), Vs Mahuva, Surat-394250 Surat Pan No: Apvpv 0109 F अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri Sapnesh R Sheth, C.A राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-Dr Date Of Filing Appeal 25.01.2023 सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 06.03.2023 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 06.03.2023 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 05.01.2023 For Assessment Year 2017-18, Which In Turn Arises Out Against The Penalty Levied By Assessing Officer Under Section 270A 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:- “1. On The Facts Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Nfac Has Erred In Confirming The Action Of Assessing Officer In Imposing Penalty Of Rs.1,54,500/- U/S 270A Of The I.T.Act, 1961. Parasben J. Vadhiya 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax(Appeals), Nfac Has Erred In Passing Ex-Parte Order Although Assessee Sought Adjournment Upto 12/01/2023. 3. It Is Therefore Prayed That Penalty Imposed By Assessing Officer & Confirmed By Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) May Please Be Deleted.

Section 139(1)Section 254(1)Section 270ASection 270A(2)Section 270A(6)Section 274Section 43B

show cause notice, explained that amount of Rs.2.50 lakh was paid on 18.01.2018, after due date of filing the return of income under section 139(1) of the Act. The copy of challan was filed. The assessee submitted that 2 Parasben J. Vadhiya he has not disallowed the said amount ... allowed in which year such amount is actually paid provided such sum is paid actually paid or before due date applicable under section 139(1). On the basis of such observation, the Assessing Officer disallowed and added back to the income of assessee and initiated penalty of misreporting

Asha Sharma, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-2(3), Jaipur

ITA 22/JPR/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Mar 2023AY 2009-10

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

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234BSection 250

that the assessee filed his original return of income for assessment year 2009-10 declaring total income of Rs. 2,12,700/- under section 139(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 on 30.07.2009. Subsequently, a search and seizure operation under section 132 of the IT Act was conducted

Shri Suresh Kumar Chawla, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward -6(3), Jaipur

ITA 8/JPR/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Mar 2023AY 2009-10

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

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234BSection 250

that the assessee filed his original return of income for assessment year 2009-10 declaring total income of Rs. 2,12,700/- under section 139(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 on 30.07.2009. Subsequently, a search and seizure operation under section 132 of the IT Act was conducted

Shri Madho Lal Saini, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-2(3), Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 238/JPR/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Mar 2023AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani (CA) &For Respondent: Shri S. Najmi (CIT)
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 54BSection 54FSection 69

under section 54B/54F holding that agricultural land (investment) was purchased (made) after the due date of filing return of income under section 139(1).” ITA NO. 06/JP/2021 : 1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action ... also made by him. The cash payment of Rs. 4,24,14,300/- was made from undisclosed income. As per provisions of section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 every person shall furnish a return of this income on or before the due date in the prescribed form

Shri Bhagwati Prasad Sharma, Dausa vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward, Dausa

ITA 27/JPR/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Mar 2023AY 2009-10

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

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234BSection 250

that the assessee filed his original return of income for assessment year 2009-10 declaring total income of Rs. 2,12,700/- under section 139(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 on 30.07.2009. Subsequently, a search and seizure operation under section 132 of the IT Act was conducted

Smt. Saroj Dhaka, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-6(3), Jaipur

ITA 1345/JPR/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Mar 2023AY 2009-10

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

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234BSection 250

that the assessee filed his original return of income for assessment year 2009-10 declaring total income of Rs. 2,12,700/- under section 139(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 on 30.07.2009. Subsequently, a search and seizure operation under section 132 of the IT Act was conducted

Shri Kailash Chand Gehlot, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-5(3) Jaipur

ITA 1279/JPR/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Mar 2023AY 2009-10

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

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234BSection 250

that the assessee filed his original return of income for assessment year 2009-10 declaring total income of Rs. 2,12,700/- under section 139(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 on 30.07.2009. Subsequently, a search and seizure operation under section 132 of the IT Act was conducted

Shri Shrinivas Tripathi, Ajmer vs. Income Tax Officer, Ajmer

ITA 471/JPR/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Mar 2023AY 2009-10

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

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234BSection 250

that the assessee filed his original return of income for assessment year 2009-10 declaring total income of Rs. 2,12,700/- under section 139(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 on 30.07.2009. Subsequently, a search and seizure operation under section 132 of the IT Act was conducted

Shri Arvind Kumar Sengwa, Ajmer vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2-1, Ajmer

ITA 1123/JPR/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Mar 2023AY 2009-10

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

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234BSection 250

that the assessee filed his original return of income for assessment year 2009-10 declaring total income of Rs. 2,12,700/- under section 139(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 on 30.07.2009. Subsequently, a search and seizure operation under section 132 of the IT Act was conducted

ACIT, Jaipur vs. Madan Mohan Gupta, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeals of the revenue

ITA 516/JPR/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Mar 2023AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Advocate)For Respondent: Shri S. Najmi (CIT)
Section 147Section 292C

assessee filed his return of income for the assessment year 2007-08 on 20.03.2008 declaring total income of Rs. 6,08,810/- under section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Subsequently, a search and ITA NOS. 449 & 513-516/JP/2017 Shri Madan Mohan Gupta, Jaipur. seizure operation under

ACIT, Jaipur vs. Madan Mohan Gupta, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeals of the revenue

ITA 515/JPR/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Mar 2023AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Advocate)For Respondent: Shri S. Najmi (CIT)
Section 147Section 292C

assessee filed his return of income for the assessment year 2007-08 on 20.03.2008 declaring total income of Rs. 6,08,810/- under section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Subsequently, a search and ITA NOS. 449 & 513-516/JP/2017 Shri Madan Mohan Gupta, Jaipur. seizure operation under

ACIT, Jaipur vs. Madan Mohan Gupta, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeals of the revenue

ITA 514/JPR/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Mar 2023AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Advocate)For Respondent: Shri S. Najmi (CIT)
Section 147Section 292C

assessee filed his return of income for the assessment year 2007-08 on 20.03.2008 declaring total income of Rs. 6,08,810/- under section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Subsequently, a search and ITA NOS. 449 & 513-516/JP/2017 Shri Madan Mohan Gupta, Jaipur. seizure operation under