← 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)

Bikash Patra, Rourkela vs. ITO Ward-4, Rourkela

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

ITA 49/CTK/2022[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack15 Feb 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2018-19 Bikash Patra, B Bikash Patra, B-4 & 5, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward Income Tax Officer, Ward-4, Sector-20, 20, Rourkela, Rourkela, Rourkela Sundargarh Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aiypp 1174 C (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By Assessee By : Shri S.K.Agarwalla, Ca & S.K.Hota, Ar S.K.Agarwalla, Ca & S.K.Hota, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 15/0 02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 15/0 /02/2023 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A), , Nfac, Nfac, Delhi Delhi Dated 30.7.2021 In Appeal No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2021 Itba/Nfac/S/250/2021-22/1034539422(1) For The Assessment Year The Assessment Year 2018- 19. 2. Shri S.K.Agarwalla, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Shri S.K.Agarwalla, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Shri S.K.Agarwalla, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr Dr Appeared For The Revenue. S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr Dr Appeared For The Revenue.

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Agarwalla, CA and S.K.Hota, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr
Section 139(1)Section 36(1)Section 37(1)Section 43B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH

Tikeswar Bag, Bolangir vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Sambalpur

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 108/CTK/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack15 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ (तऱाशियाां और अशिग्रहण) सं/It(Ss)A Nos.25 To 30/Ctk/2022 & आयकर अऩीऱ (तऱाशियाां और अशिग्रहण) सं/It(Ss)A No.108/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2011-2012 To 2016-2017 & 2017-2018) Tikeswar Bag, Vs Dcit, Circle-2(1), Sambalpur At-Tengra, Badasaimara, Bolangir-767037 Pan No. :Darpb 1978 Q (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : None राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Arun Kanti Sinha, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 15/02/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 15/02/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, All Dated 30.03.2022 For The Assessment Years 2011-2012 To 2016-2017 & 2017-2018, Respectively. 2. None Represented On Behalf Of The Assessee. However, An Adjournment Application Has Been Filed By Shri Jag Mohan Pattnaik, Advocate Claiming That He Is Suffering From Severe Cold & Fever & Consequently The Adjournment Is Being Sought. The Counsel Has Also Attached A Medical Certificate Which Mentions That He Is Having Fever Of High Grade. The Medical Certificate Is Issued From A Doctor With Apollo Heart Institute. It Does Not Even Contain The Patient Id Of The Said Hospital. Thus, The Ground Taken For Adjournment, In Our Opinion, Is Not A Plausible One And, Therefore, The Same Is Not Accepted.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Sinha, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 153A

आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण, कटक न्यायऩीठ,कटक IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK श्री जाजज माथन, न्याययक सदस्य