← 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)

DCIT, Central Circle-4, New Delhi vs. SMC Foods Ltd, Saharanpur

In the result, Revenue appeal ITA No

ITA 2661/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271A

cases on 21.11.2017 for A.Y. 2018-19 at 4-654, Bomanji Road, Saharanpur, U.P. The assessee filed its original return of income under Section 139(1) of the Act on 24.09.2018 declaring total income of Rs. 16,50,72,480/-. Consequent to search initiated against the assessee, the case

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Dhanbad vs. Bindhyavasini Commercial Services Private Limited, Dhanbad

ITA 240/RAN/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi22 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.240/Ran/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Acit, Central Circle, Dhanbad.….……………............................……….……Appellant Vs. Bindhyavasini Commercial Services Pvt. Ltd….........……........……...…..…..Respondent House No.41, Premises Of Punj Kumar Singh, Near Suraksha Clinic, Hetli Bandh, Jharia, Dhanbad, Jharkhand – 828111. [Pan: Aaecb0160D] Appearances By: Shri Manish Tiwari, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Kanhaiya Lal Kanak, Cit Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 10, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 22, 2025

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH-RANCHI VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA Before Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member and Shri

Ls Metatech Private Limited, Raipur vs. ITO, Circle 1(1), Raipur

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

ITA 766/RPR/2025[2024-25]Status: HeardITAT Raipur22 Dec 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.766/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2024-25 Ls Metatech Private Limited 109, 1St Floor, Meghdoot Complex, Behind Vandana Bhawan, M. G. Road, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Aadcl5735B

For Appellant: Shri Shubham B Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 234BSection 288Section 44ASection 80Section 80I

furnishing a declaration before the assessing officer and that too before the due date of filing the original return of income under section 139(1) are to be satisfied and both are mandatorily to be complied with. Accordingly, the question of law is answered in favour of the Revenue ... before 12 LS Metatech Private Limited Vs. ITO, Circle-1(1), Raipur the due date of filing the original return of income under section 139(1) are to be satisfied and both mandatorily have to be complied with. 10. Reverting to the facts of the present case as examined aforestated

Kirti Tripathi, Bhopal vs. ITO 2(4), Bhopal

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 572/IND/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148

books of accounts and file income tax returns. 2. That for the Assessment Year 2011-12, | had filed my return of income under Section 139(1) on 19.11.2011 declaring total income of *2,22,720/- , vide e-acknowledgment No. 315926740191111. 3. That the assessment was reopened under Section

Electronics & Quality Development Centre, Gandhinagar vs. The Dy.CIT, (Exemption), Circle-1, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 248/AHD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay R Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri R. P. Rastogi, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

assessee, Electronics & Quality Development Centre, filed its original return of income for Assessment Year 2022-23 on 07.11.2022 declaring nil income under section 139(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”). Thereafter, the assessee filed a revised return of income on 31.12.2022 under section Electronics & Quality Development Centre ... section 11(2) of the Act on ground that assessee had failed to furnish Form No. 10 before date of furnishing return under section 139(1) - Assessee filed an application under section 119(2)(b) of the Act praying for condonation of delay in filing Form No. 10 and accordingly

Shri Anand Venkateshwara Developers, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 9(3), Pune

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

ITA 2407/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2407/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Anand Venkateshwara V The Income Tax Officer, Developers, S Ward-9(3), Pune. S.No.23/2/1 B 5, S.No.23, H.No.2/1 B5, Anand Park, Thergaon Road, Pimpri, Pune – 411033. Maharashtra. Pan: Acnfs5707R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Suhas P Bora Revenue By Shri Harshit Bari – Addl.Cit(Virtual) Date Of Hearing 18/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22/12/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2013-14 Dated 29.08.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 147 R.W.S 144B Of The Act, Dated 30.03.2022. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 250Section 56

perused the records. In this case, as per the assessment order, Assessee is a partnership firm and not filed return of income under section 139(1) of the Act, for A.Y.2013-14. Assessing Officer based on AIMS Data, issued notice u/s.148 dated 31.03.2021 for A.Y.2013-14. In response to the notice u/s.148

Kedambadi Milk Producers Co-Operative Women Society Limited, Kedambadi vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1 Puttur, Puttur

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 280/BANG/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Dec 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Krishna Kantila, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate, Standing Counsel
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143Section 154Section 80Section 80ASection 80PSection 80p

under Chapter VI A of the act. Thus admittedly the return of income was filed beyond due date prescribed under section 139 (1) of the act. Assessee was issued communication for adjustment on 3/8/2020 and then intimation was passed. Assessee filed rectified return u/s 154 of the act , The intimation ... claimed by the appellant under section 80 P of the act because the tax return was filed after the due date specified in section 139 (1) of the act. The due date of filing of the return was 31st of August 2019. According to him the provisions of section 80AC

Chikkamudnoor Milk Producers Co-Operative Society Limited, Chikkamudnoor vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Puttur

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 104/BANG/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Krishna Kantila, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate, Standing Counsel
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143Section 154Section 80Section 80ASection 80PSection 80p

under Chapter VI A of the act. Thus admittedly the return of income was filed beyond due date prescribed under section 139 (1) of the act. Assessee was issued communication for adjustment on 3/8/2020 and then intimation was passed. Assessee filed rectified return u/s 154 of the act , The intimation ... claimed by the appellant under section 80 P of the act because the tax return was filed after the due date specified in section 139 (1) of the act. The due date of filing of the return was 31st of August 2019. According to him the provisions of section 80AC

Arjun Arora, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 44(6), New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 4569/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalarjun Arora Vs Ito Plot No. 71/7, Ground Floor Ward-44(6), Building No. 14A, Industrial New Delhi Area, Moti Nagar, New Delhi Pan: Aacpa7560R Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Saurav Rohtagi, Ca Revenue By Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 22/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22/12/2025 Order

Section 139(1)Section 271BSection 44A

1 Arjun Arora Vs. ITO IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI (DELHI BENCH ‘B’ NEW DELHI) BEFORE YOGESH KUMAR

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle vs. Aryan Arcade Limited, Rajkot

ITA 229/RJT/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot19 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआ. (खो और ज).सं./It(Ss)A Nos.14/Rjt/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Year: (2014-15) Deputy Commissioner Of Income बनाम Shri Gopal Bhupendra Chudasama, Tax, Central Circle-1, “Amruta /Vs. Shop 10, Om Shivalik, 8 Chandan Estate", 2Nd Floor, M.G. Road, Park, Nr. Paradise Hall, Rajkot-360 Rajkot-360 001 005 (Gujarat) स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ablpc 5612 L (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) आ. (खो और ज). सं./It(Ss)A Nos.63 To 65/Rjt/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: (2016-17 To 2018-19) M/S Aryan Arcade Ltd. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, “Amruta | बनाम Estate", 2Nd Floor, M.G. Road, /Vs. Rajkot-360 001 Iscon Mega Mall, Basement, Nana Mauva, Main Road, Of 150 Ft, Ring Road, Opp. Nehru Nagar Society, Rajkot-360 009 (Guj) स्थायी लेखा सं./जी आइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aafca 0162 P (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.229/Rjt/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: (2019-20) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, “Amruta | बनाम M/S Aryan Arcade Ltd. Estate", 2Nd Floor, M.G. Road, /Vs. Iscon Mega Mall, Basement, Nana Rajkot-360001 Mauva, Main Road, Of 150 Ft, Ring Road, Opp. Nehru Nagar Society, Rajkot-360 009(Guj) स्थायी लेखासं./जी आइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aafca 0162 P (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Maneesh Upnejja, Ld. Ar & Shri Baldev Raj, Ld. Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By :Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 25/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19/12/2025 It(Ss)A Nos. 14/Rjt/2024, 63-65/Rjt/2023 & Ita No.229/Rjt/2023, Ays 14-15, 16-17 To 19-20 Gopal B Chudasama & Aryan Arcade Ltd. आदेश/Order Per Bench: This Is Bunch Of Five Appeals By The Revenue, Pertaining To Separate

For Appellant: Shri Maneesh Upnejja, Ld. AR &For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, राजकोट न्यायपीठ, राजकोट । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI

Vidyut Transmission Karmachari Vetan Bhogi Credit Cooperative Society, Lucknow vs. CPC Bangalore/ITO-2(1), Lucknow

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 464/LKW/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow19 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

specific clause in section 143(1)(a) which speaks about 'disallowance of deduction' when return is not filed within time limit provided in section 139(1) and when such clause does not mention section 80P then no adjustment can be made u/s 143(1)(a) of the Act for disallowance ... claimed deduction under section 80P - Assessing Officer denied said deduction holding that return of income was not filed within due date prescribed under section 139(1) However, assessee had filed its return of income belatedly on 30-11-2020-It was noted that denial of claim under section 80P would

The Nanol Dudh Utpadak Sahkari Mandali Ltd., Banaskantha vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Palanpur

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 1749/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 80ASection 80P

outset, it is important to note that in this case the appellant had neither filed return of income as per the provisions of section 139(1) of Income Tax Act nor the return of income was filed in response to notice issued under section 148 of Income Tax Act. Moreover ... Income Tax Act but owing to the fact that it did not file its return of income as per the provisions of section 139(1) of Income Tax Act, it could not have claim the same as per the provisions of section 80AC of Income Tax Act. 7.3 Keeping

Lalchand Narayan Bhakt, Jalna vs. ITO Ward 2, Jalna

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

ITA 93/PUN/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Shri R. K. Pandaassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Hari KrishanFor Respondent: Shri A D Kulkarni
Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 148Section 2(14)(iii)Section 2(47)(v)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE JUSTICE (RETD.) C V BHADANG, PRESIDENT AND SHRI R

Patel Sew Joint Venture, Telangana vs. DCIT., Circle-6(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the cross-objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 884/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Dec 2025AY 2019-20
Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 80Section 801A(4)

assessee has not claimed 5 ITA No.884/Hyd/2025 & ITA 742/Hyd/2025 & C.O.No.17/Hyd/2025 Patel SEW Joint Venture deduction in the return of income filed under Section 139(1) of the Act on 30.10.2019, but has made a claim in the revised return filed under Section 139(5) of the Act. The assessee ... only on the ground that, the assessee has not claimed such deduction in the return of income filed under Section 139(1) of the Act, even though, the return filed under Section 139(5) replaces the original return of income filed under Section 139(1

ACIT., Circle-6(1), Hyderabad vs. Patel Sew Jointventure, Hyderabad

In the result, the cross-objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 742/HYD/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Dec 2025AY 2023-24
Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 80Section 801A(4)

assessee has not claimed 5 ITA No.884/Hyd/2025 & ITA 742/Hyd/2025 & C.O.No.17/Hyd/2025 Patel SEW Joint Venture deduction in the return of income filed under Section 139(1) of the Act on 30.10.2019, but has made a claim in the revised return filed under Section 139(5) of the Act. The assessee ... only on the ground that, the assessee has not claimed such deduction in the return of income filed under Section 139(1) of the Act, even though, the return filed under Section 139(5) replaces the original return of income filed under Section 139(1

Komma Reddy Satyanarayan Reddy, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer Ward- 8(2), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1634/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1634/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Ms. Komma Reddy Vs. Income Tax Officer Satyanarayan Reddy, Ward 8(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Bgspr2381A (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Sayyad Sadak & Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, Cva राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Waseem Ur Rehman, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 04/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 19/12/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

For Appellant: Shri Sayyad Sadak and Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, CVAFor Respondent: : Shri Waseem UR Rehman, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 69A

supported the orders of the lower authorities. The Ld. DR submitted that the assessee did not file the return voluntarily under section 139(1) of the Act. Even when notice under section 142(1) of the Act required the assessee to file her return by 11.03.2018, the assessee neither filed

Srinivas Chowdary Vallabhaneni, Secunderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-1(4), Hyderabad

ITA 1461/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.1461/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2019-20)

For Appellant: Shri Phaneendra Nag, CAFor Respondent: : Smt. Reema Yadav, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 271Section 271ASection 274

cases of various persons, including the assessee. Subsequently, the assessee filed return of income for the Assessment Year 2019–20 under section 139(1) of the Act on 31.08.2019 admitting a total income of Rs.98,03,260/-, which included Rs.35 lakhs offered as additional income during the course of search ... lakhs during the search only to buy peace of mind and had duly included this sum in the return of income filed under section 139(1) of the Act and paid the taxes. The Ld. AR submitted that no incriminating document or material was found during the course of search

Rajeswara Rao Anne, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-1(4), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1438/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Phaneendra Nag, CA
Section 11ISection 132Section 132(4)Section 271Section 271ASection 274

admitted income of Rs.24 lakhs. Subsequently, the assessee filed his return of income for the Assessment Year 2019- 20 under section 139(1) of the Act on 31.08.2019 admitting a total income of Rs.1,14,75,060/-, which included Rs.24 lakhs offered as additional income during the course of search ... lakhs during the search only to buy peace of mind and had duly included the amount in her return of income filed under section 139(1), paying taxes thereon. The Ld. AR submitted that no incriminating material was found during search in relation to the sum of Rs.24 lakhs

Anne Manoj Chowdary, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Center Circle-1(4), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1437/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1437/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20) Shri Anne Manoj Chowdary Vs. Dy. Cit Hyderabad Central Circle 1(4) Pan:Ainpc5963B Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Phaneendra Nag, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Waseem Ur Rehman, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 03/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 19/12/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

For Appellant: Shri Phaneendra Nag, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Waseem UR Rehman, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 271ASection 69A

income in the hands of the assessee. Subsequently, the assessee filed her return of income for the Assessment Year 2019–20 under section 139(1) of the Act on 31.08.2019 admitting a total income of Rs.61,02,790/-, which included Rs.21 lakhs offered as additional income during the course ... lakhs during the search only to buy peace of mind and had duly included the amount in her return of income filed under section 139(1), paying taxes thereon. The Ld. AR submitted that no incriminating material was found during search in relation to the sum of Rs.21 lakhs

DCIT (Exemptions), Circle 1(1), Hyderabad vs. National Institute of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj, Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeal filed by the Revenue and cross- objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1211/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 11Section 124(3)Section 139Section 148

assessee has not filed the return of income along with the audit report in Form No. 10B within the time specified under Section 139(1) of the Act as required under the provisions of Section 12A(1)(b) of the Act. Since the assessee has not furnished the return ... assessee further submitted that, although it has not furnished its return of income on or before the due date provided under Section 139(1) of the Act, but has filed its return of income in response to notice under Section 148 of the Act, within the time specified thereon