“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)

ACIT, Jaipur vs. Madan Mohan Gupta, Jaipur

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

ITA 513/JPR/2017[202007-0814-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Mar 2023

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

Madan Mohan Gupta, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Jaipur

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

ITA 449/JPR/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Mar 2023AY 2007-08

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

ACIT, Central Circle-28, New Delhi vs. Tehri Pulp & Paper Ltd, Muzaffarnagar

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

ITA 2141/DEL/2022[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Mar 2023AY 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Toufel Tahir, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 140Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148

facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the fact that as per section 139(1) of the I.T. Act 1961 return was required to be filed in prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner setting forth such other particulars

DCIT, Circle-19(2), New Delhi vs. Pawan Hans Ltd., Noida

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 7417/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. K. K. Mishra, Sr. DR

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 37(1)

1,57,05,972/- for the training of air and ground crew and treated it as intangible asset in the return filed under section 139(1). The AO treated this expenditure as creation of intangible asset and allowed 1/5th of the expenditure. ITA No. 6441/Del/2017, 3 Pawan Hans

Addl.CIT, Special Range- 7, New Delhi vs. Pawan Hans Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 6441/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. K. K. Mishra, Sr. DR

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 37(1)

M/S Brmsco Garments Private Limited, Ernakulam vs. ITO Corporate Ward -1, Kochi

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

ITA 877/COCH/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Mar 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.M/S. Brmsco Garments Pvt. Ltd. Vs The Income Tax Officer V/103A Onakkur, Pampakuda Corporate Ward -1 Anchalpetty P.O. Kochi Ernakulam 686667 Pan – Aadcb2001L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Shijoy K.G., FCAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250

contended before the first appellate authority that the assessee had paid employees’ contribution before the due date for filing of return under Section 139(1) of the Act. Therefore, it is entitled to the deduction claimed. The CIT(A), however, rejected the contention of the assessee. The CIT(A), following

Shri Navavaghniya Seva Sahkari Mandali Limited, Amreli vs. The DCIT/ACIT (CPC), Bangalore, Banagalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 13/RJT/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot03 Mar 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 80P

perused the material on record. In the instant facts, admittedly the assessee did not file return of income within the time permissible under section 139(1) of the Act. However, the assessee filed its return of income belatedly on 30-11-2020 and claimed deduction ... issue for consideration before us is that whether once the return of income is filed beyond the prescribed date under section 139(1) of the Act, can the deduction under section 80P of the Act be denied to the assessee, by way of adjustment under section 143(1

Shri Satbir Singh Bhullar, Amritsar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward- 5 (4), Amritsar

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

ITA 258/ASR/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar02 Mar 2023AY 2008-09

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

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)Section 250oSection 68

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

M/S Tesla Transformers (India) Ltd, Bhopal vs. ACIT 3(1) Bhopal, Bhopal

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

ITA 190/IND/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Indore02 Mar 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Tesla Transformers Acit 3(1) (India) Ltd. Bhopal Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aagct 8705 J Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 28.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 02.03.2023

Section 115BSection 143(1)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY

Shri Reyaz Ahmad Rather, Srinagar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward- 3 (3), Srinagar

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

ITA 385/ASR/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar01 Mar 2023AY 2008-09

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

Section 144Section 148Section 250

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

ACIT, Circle- 27(1), New Delhi vs. Uniparts India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 6056/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 92C

ground that the payments were made before the due date of filing of return of income under Section 139(1) of the Act. However, in case of Checkmat Services (P)Ltd. vs. CIT (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that unless the payment 11 ITA No.6056/Del./2017 towards employees

Hi-Tech Instruments & Systems, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 15/VIZ/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Feb 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.15/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2019-20) Hi-Tech Instruments & Control Vs. Income Tax Officer, Systems, Ward-4(1), Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aadfh 9770 K (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri D. Madhusudhana Rao, Ca ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Sri On Hari Prasada Rao, Sr. Ar

For Appellant: Sri D. Madhusudhana Rao, CAFor Respondent: Sri ON Hari Prasada Rao, Sr. AR

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

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

Hi-Tech Water Solution Pvt. Ltd., Surat vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1 (1)(1), Surat

In the result, the ground of appeal raised by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 434/SRT/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Feb 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.434/Srt/2022 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Hi-Tech Water Solution Pvt. Ltd., The Dcit, Circle – 1(1)(1), Vs. 229-230, Turning Point Complex, (Processed By Ghod Dod Road, Opp. Fire Dcit-Cpc-Bangalore) Station, Surat – 395007. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadch1709F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Vinod Goyal, Ca Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 08/02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 27/02/2023

Section 115Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 80Section 80I

return of income by the CPC, it was considered, as if the return of income was filed beyond due date prescribed under section 139(1) of the Act, and therefore by invoking the provision of section 143(1)(a)(v) of the Act, the deduction claimed by assessee ... loss from business or profession to be carried forward, the assessee should file its return of income within due date as prescribed under Section 139(1). The ld. CIT(A) has held that assessee’s claim of loss was disallowed for the reasons that the return was not filed within

Navbharat Charitable Trust, Bharuch vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Bharuch

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

ITA 385/SRT/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Feb 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhita No. 383, 384 & 385/Srt/2022 (Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) (Hearing In Virtual Court) Navbharat Charitable Trust, I.T.O., 0, Rajpardi, Jhagadia, Ward-1, Vs. Bharuch. Bharuch. Pan No. Aactn 0979 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 11Section 12ASection 13(10)Section 254(1)Section 80G

filed report under From 10B either before filing of return of income or before due date for filing of return under Section 139(1) of the Act. Thus, the assessee was not eligible for exemption under Section 11 and 12 of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) has passed

Navbharat Charitable Trust, Bharuch vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Bharuch

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

ITA 384/SRT/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Feb 2023AY 2018-19

Section 11Section 12ASection 13(10)Section 254(1)Section 80G

Navbharat Charitable Trust, Bharuch vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Bharuch

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

ITA 383/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Section 11Section 12ASection 13(10)Section 254(1)Section 80G

Ocean Exim India Private Ltd, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 1(2), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 37/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Feb 2023AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Prabha Rana (Adv.)For Respondent: Ms Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT)

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(A)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 2Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

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 25 Ocean Exim India Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO Section

Shri Banwari Lal Agrawal, Ajmer vs. ITO, Ward-2, Kishangarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1245/JPR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Feb 2023AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, JCIT

Section 147Section 148Section 151

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

G.S Developers & Contractors Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ACIT Range-10, Delhi

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

ITA 757/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Feb 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Chandra Mohan Gargita Nos. 756 & 757/Del/2022 (Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2019-20) G. S. Developers & Vs. Acit Contractors Pvt. Ltd. Range -10 C-58, Community Centre, Delhi Sahapuri Tirath Singh Tower, New Delhi – 110058 Pan No. Aaacg 0870 D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri D. K. Gupta, C.A Shri S. C. Malhotra, C.A Revenue By Ms. Kirti Sankratyayan, Sr. D.R Date Of Hearing: 20.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.02.2023 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Dated 04.04.2022 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Relating To Assessment Years 2017-18 & 2019-20. 2. At The Outset, Learned Ar Submitted That The Issue Involved In Both The Appeals Are Identical Except For The Year & Amounts Involved & Therefore The Submissions Made By Him For One Year

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(v)Section 43B

employee share of PF and ESI as the same was deposited before the due date of filing of the return of income under section 139(1) of the IT Act. v. That the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in directing the AO to verify that the Profit on Sale ... 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

G.S Developers & Contractors Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ACIT Range-10, Delhi

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

ITA 756/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(v)Section 43B