← 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)

Essel Mining & Industries Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-Central-1, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3202/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Nov 2022AY 2009-10
Section 127(2)Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 153CSection 263

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘E‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Technocon Constructions & Infrastructure Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1) Represented by Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 985/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Rajgopal, ARFor Respondent: Sri.K.R.Narayana, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 30Section 32Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 438Section 43B

amounting to Rs.4,27,837/-paid by the Appellant, though, the same was remitted before the due date of filing of return under section 139(1) of the Act. 4. The learned Assessing Officer has erred, in law and in facts, by not considering the provisions of Section

Draeger Safety India Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax NFAC, Mumbai

In the result, the assessee filed by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 1533/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhdraeger Safety India Vs. Commissioner Of Income Private Limited, Tax Appeals 9Th Floor, Commerz Ii National Faceless International Business Assessment Centre Park, Oberoi Garden Delhi City, Off Western Express Highway Mumbai – 400063 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaecd0537A Respondent .. Appellant

For Appellant: Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Mahita Nair
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

ITA No.1533/Mum/2022 A.Y.2018-19 1 Draeger Safety India Pvt. Ltd. VS.CIT(A) NFAC IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH

M/S. Trishul Buildtech & Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bengaluru

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 109/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri A. Shankar, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R
Section 250

domestic company engaged in the business of real estate. The assessee filed return of income for the assessment year 2016-17 under section 139(1) of the Act on 13.10.2016 declaring Nil income and for the assessment year 2017-18 under section 139(1) of the Act on 04.10.2017 declaring

M/S. Trishul Buildtech & Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bengaluru

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 108/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri A. Shankar, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R
Section 250

domestic company engaged in the business of real estate. The assessee filed return of income for the assessment year 2016-17 under section 139(1) of the Act on 13.10.2016 declaring Nil income and for the assessment year 2017-18 under section 139(1) of the Act on 04.10.2017 declaring

M/S. Trishul Buildtech & Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bengaluru

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 107/BANG/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri A. Shankar, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R
Section 250

domestic company engaged in the business of real estate. The assessee filed return of income for the assessment year 2016-17 under section 139(1) of the Act on 13.10.2016 declaring Nil income and for the assessment year 2017-18 under section 139(1) of the Act on 04.10.2017 declaring

2M Ateliers & Design Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asstt. DIT, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 1357/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm 2M Ateliers & Design Pvt. Ltd. Asst. Dit, Cpc 62, Evergreen Industrial Estate, Bengaluru, Karnataka-560 001 Shakti Mill Lane, Mahalaxmi, Vs. Mumbai-400 011

For Appellant: None
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 44A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM

Batliboi Renewable Energy Soluations Private Limited, Chennai vs. Asst. Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

The appeals stand dismissed

ITA 813/CHNY/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Nov 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.789/Chny/2022 (िनधा0रण वष0 / Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S.Electrical India Adit, Cpc बनाम/ New No.205, Old No.92/2, Lake View Road, Bengaluru. Vs. West Mambalam, Chennai-600 033. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaafe-2087-M (अपीलाथ!/Appellant) : ($%थ! / Respondent) अपीलाथ!कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri I.Dinesh, Advocate $%थ!कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Arv Sreenivasan (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.813/Chny/2022 (िनधा0रण वष0 / Assessment Year: 2020-21) M/S. Batliboi Renewable Energy Adit, Cpc बनाम/ Solutions Private Ltd. Bengaluru. No.28, Thiru-Vi-Ka Industrial Estate, Vs. Ekkaduthangal, Guindy, Chennai-600 032. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacb-6055-H (अपीलाथ!/Appellant) : ($%थ! / Respondent) अपीलाथ!कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. Kumar (Advocate) – Ld. Ar $%थ!कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Arv Sreenivasan (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Dr & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.788/Chny/2022 (िनधा0रण वष0 / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Mr. Abdul Hassan Risvi Adit, Cpc 27, 3Rd Floor, Chindhamani Building, बनाम/ Bengaluru. Meeran Sahib Street, Mount Road, Vs. Chennai-600 002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Audpr-2171-E (अपीलाथ!/Appellant) : ($%थ! / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri I.Dinesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 43Section 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 Section 43-B on actual payment basis and such deduction would

Electrical India, Chennai vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru

The appeals stand dismissed

ITA 789/CHNY/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Nov 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.789/Chny/2022 (िनधा0रण वष0 / Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S.Electrical India Adit, Cpc बनाम/ New No.205, Old No.92/2, Lake View Road, Bengaluru. Vs. West Mambalam, Chennai-600 033. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaafe-2087-M (अपीलाथ!/Appellant) : ($%थ! / Respondent) अपीलाथ!कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri I.Dinesh, Advocate $%थ!कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Arv Sreenivasan (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.813/Chny/2022 (िनधा0रण वष0 / Assessment Year: 2020-21) M/S. Batliboi Renewable Energy Adit, Cpc बनाम/ Solutions Private Ltd. Bengaluru. No.28, Thiru-Vi-Ka Industrial Estate, Vs. Ekkaduthangal, Guindy, Chennai-600 032. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacb-6055-H (अपीलाथ!/Appellant) : ($%थ! / Respondent) अपीलाथ!कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. Kumar (Advocate) – Ld. Ar $%थ!कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Arv Sreenivasan (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Dr & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.788/Chny/2022 (िनधा0रण वष0 / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Mr. Abdul Hassan Risvi Adit, Cpc 27, 3Rd Floor, Chindhamani Building, बनाम/ Bengaluru. Meeran Sahib Street, Mount Road, Vs. Chennai-600 002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Audpr-2171-E (अपीलाथ!/Appellant) : ($%थ! / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri I.Dinesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 43Section 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 Section 43-B on actual payment basis and such deduction would

Mr. Abdul Hassn Rizvi, Chennai vs. ADIT, CPC, Bangalore

The appeals stand dismissed

ITA 788/CHNY/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Nov 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.789/Chny/2022 (िनधा0रण वष0 / Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S.Electrical India Adit, Cpc बनाम/ New No.205, Old No.92/2, Lake View Road, Bengaluru. Vs. West Mambalam, Chennai-600 033. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaafe-2087-M (अपीलाथ!/Appellant) : ($%थ! / Respondent) अपीलाथ!कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri I.Dinesh, Advocate $%थ!कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Arv Sreenivasan (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.813/Chny/2022 (िनधा0रण वष0 / Assessment Year: 2020-21) M/S. Batliboi Renewable Energy Adit, Cpc बनाम/ Solutions Private Ltd. Bengaluru. No.28, Thiru-Vi-Ka Industrial Estate, Vs. Ekkaduthangal, Guindy, Chennai-600 032. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacb-6055-H (अपीलाथ!/Appellant) : ($%थ! / Respondent) अपीलाथ!कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. Kumar (Advocate) – Ld. Ar $%थ!कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Arv Sreenivasan (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Dr & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.788/Chny/2022 (िनधा0रण वष0 / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Mr. Abdul Hassan Risvi Adit, Cpc 27, 3Rd Floor, Chindhamani Building, बनाम/ Bengaluru. Meeran Sahib Street, Mount Road, Vs. Chennai-600 002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Audpr-2171-E (अपीलाथ!/Appellant) : ($%थ! / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri I.Dinesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 43Section 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 Section 43-B on actual payment basis and such deduction would

Dharmaraj Shankar Ganesh, Chennai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

The appeals stand dismissed

ITA 756/CHNY/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Nov 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.789/Chny/2022 (िनधा0रण वष0 / Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S.Electrical India Adit, Cpc बनाम/ New No.205, Old No.92/2, Lake View Road, Bengaluru. Vs. West Mambalam, Chennai-600 033. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaafe-2087-M (अपीलाथ!/Appellant) : ($%थ! / Respondent) अपीलाथ!कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri I.Dinesh, Advocate $%थ!कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Arv Sreenivasan (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.813/Chny/2022 (िनधा0रण वष0 / Assessment Year: 2020-21) M/S. Batliboi Renewable Energy Adit, Cpc बनाम/ Solutions Private Ltd. Bengaluru. No.28, Thiru-Vi-Ka Industrial Estate, Vs. Ekkaduthangal, Guindy, Chennai-600 032. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacb-6055-H (अपीलाथ!/Appellant) : ($%थ! / Respondent) अपीलाथ!कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. Kumar (Advocate) – Ld. Ar $%थ!कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Arv Sreenivasan (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Dr & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.788/Chny/2022 (िनधा0रण वष0 / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Mr. Abdul Hassan Risvi Adit, Cpc 27, 3Rd Floor, Chindhamani Building, बनाम/ Bengaluru. Meeran Sahib Street, Mount Road, Vs. Chennai-600 002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Audpr-2171-E (अपीलाथ!/Appellant) : ($%थ! / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri I.Dinesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 43Section 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 Section 43-B on actual payment basis and such deduction would

Sucram Pharmaceuticals Private Limited, Chennai vs. ITO Corporate Ward 6(4), Chennai

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

ITA 987/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.987/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Sucram Pharmaceuticals Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Private Limited, Corporate Ward 6(4), H37J, Manthoppu Colony, 8Th Avenue, Chennai. Ashok Nagar, Chennai 600 083. [Pan:Aakcs2196J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Sheila Parthasarathy, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 31.10.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 15, Chennai Dated 30.01.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Facts Are, In Brief, That The Assessee Is In The Business Of Manufacturing Of Medicines & Drugs & Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2012-13 On 30.03.2013 Admitting Nil Income. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny By Cass & After Following Due

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sheila Parthasarathy, Addl. CIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 80I

only on 30.03.2013, thereby, the assessee company has failed to e-file the return of income within the due date specified as per section 139(1) of the Act. The Assessing Officer has also noted that under section 80IC of the Act, the assessee shall not be entitled to deduction ... return of income is not furnished within the due date as per section 139(1) of the Act. The CBDT empowers as per section 139(1) of the Act to prescribe the manner in which the return of income is filed. Proviso (ab) of sub-rule (3) of Rule

Vivek Residency, Madurai vs. ITO, Ward-II (4), Range-II, Madurai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 199/CHNY/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 199/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2011-12

For Appellant: Shri. I. Dinesh, Advocate
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 80Section 80ASection 80I

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी महावीर "संह, उपा"य

M/S. Anupam Ranjan (HUF), Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(2)(1), Bangalore

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 512/BANG/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2012 – 13

For Appellant: Smt. Pratibha, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni, D.R
Section 54Section 54F

ITA No.512/Bang/2022 M/s. Anupam Ranjan (HUF), Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI

M/S. India Pistons Limited, Chennai vs. ITO, NFAC, Delhi

The appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 797/CHNY/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri R.Vijayaraghavan, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan – (Addl. CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 35Section 36(1)(va)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “ए” "ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय *ी वी. दुगा0

The Ikkaraiboluvampatti Paccs 33, Coimbatore vs. ITO, Ncw 4(2), Coimbatore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 461/CHNY/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.461/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S.Ikkaraiboluvampatti Paccs, V. The Income Tax Officer, 33, Rajaji Street, Non-Corporate Ward-4(2), Coimbatore. Coimbatore. [Pan: Aaaai 3699 A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By Mr.J.Saravanan, Adv. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.P.Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19.10.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 02.11.2022

For Respondent: Mr.P.Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी वी. दुगा" राव, माननीय

Janki Vaishali Co-Operative Housing Society Limited, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal), Delhi

In the result, impugned order is upheld and appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 944/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 944/मुं/2022 ("न.व 2018-19) Janki Vaishali Co-Operative Housing Society Limited, Plot No.1521, Janki Vaishali, Juhu Church Road, Janki Kutir, Juhu, Mumbai 400 049. Pan: Aacaj-4400-A ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Manoj Mahimkar ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Ms. Beena Santosh सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 03/08/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 31/10/2022 आदेश/ Order This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [ In Short ‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 10/03/2022 For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Assessee In Appeal Has Assailed The Findings Of The Cit(A) In Disallowing Assessee’S Claim Of Deduction U/S 80P(2)(D) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [ In Short ‘The Act’] On The Pretext That The Assessee Had Not Filed Return Of Income Within Due Date As Specified U/S. 139(1) Of The Act .

For Appellant: Shri Manoj MahimkarFor Respondent: Ms. Beena Santosh
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 80Section 80ASection 80ISection 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण मुंबई पीठ “एस एम सी” , मुंबई "ी "वकास अव"थी, "या"यक सद"य के सम

Ashok Popatbhai Choudhari, Mumbai vs. WD 17 (1) (2), Mumbai

ITA 29/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri S.G. Bhuptani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Azhar Zain Vayal Parambath, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2011-12

ACIT CC- 4 (2), Mumbai vs. K.Raheja Corp.Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 2517/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vice- & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 2284/मुं/2021 ("न.व .2012-13) आअसं. 2285/मुं/2021 ("न.व .2013-14)

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Salil Mishra
Section 132Section 143(3)

assessment year 2012-13 would equally apply to the current assessment year. 11. We find that in the return of income filed under section 139(1) of the Act the assessee had offered income from lease rental under the head “income from house property”. The scrutiny assessment under section

K. Raheja Corp Pvt.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Cir-4(2), Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 2285/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vice- & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 2284/मुं/2021 ("न.व .2012-13) आअसं. 2285/मुं/2021 ("न.व .2013-14)

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Salil Mishra
Section 132Section 143(3)

assessment year 2012-13 would equally apply to the current assessment year. 11. We find that in the return of income filed under section 139(1) of the Act the assessee had offered income from lease rental under the head “income from house property”. The scrutiny assessment under section