← 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)

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

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 2284/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

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

DCIT (CC) 7(4), Mumbai vs. M/S. La Trendz Fabrica Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 1538/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Damor
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S

M/S. Biesse Manufacturing Company Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 338/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri, Tata Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sankar K. Ganeshan, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 92C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Ms. PADMAVATHY S

The Metturdam Tansi & Tamin Employees Co-Op Thrift Credit Society Limited, Salem vs. ITO, NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 801/CHNY/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.801/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 The Metturdam Tansi & Tamin Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Employees Co-Op. Thrift Credit Society Income Tax, Central Processing Limited, No. 17, Sagunthala Complex, Centre, Bengaluru. East Main Road, Mettur, Salem 636 401. [Pan:Aaras2644E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : None ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 26.10.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.10.2022 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), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), New Delhi, Dated 05.08.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Facts Are, In Brief, That The Assessee Is Co-Operative Credit Society, Filed Its Return Of Income On 31.03.2019, Admittedly Not Under Section 139(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short]. The Assessee Has 2

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 119Section 139(1)Section 80ASection 80P

Facts are, in brief, that the assessee is co-operative credit society, filed its return of income on 31.03.2019, admittedly not under section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short]. The assessee has 2 I.T.A. No.801/Chny/22 declared income of ₹.38,55,180/- and thereafter claimed deduction

Smt. P. Chitra, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw - 13 (2), Chennai

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

ITA 749/CHNY/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 749/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Respondent: Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 54F

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

Indu Sekar, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 16(3), Chennai

The appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 1906/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjunraj (CA) for Shri. S. SridharFor Respondent: Shri S. Chandrasekaran (JCIT) – Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 54F

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ‘ए’ "ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय +ी वी. दुगा1

Soumya Ghosh, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 832/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Oct 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2019-20 Soumya Ghosh, C-1103, The Assistant Windmills Of Your Commissioner Of Mind, Income Tax, Epip Zone, Whitefield, Circle – 3(3)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Affpg0104B Appellant Respondent : Shri Ravi Shankar, Assessee By Advocate : Smt. Priyadarshini Revenue By Baseganni, Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 19-10-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-10-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 19/07/2022 Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For Assessment Year 2019-20 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Passed By The Hon'Ble Commissioner Of Income Tax Nfac, Delhi, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act") Is So Far As It Is Against The Appellant Is Opposed To Law, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case.

For Respondent: Shri Ravi Shankar
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 250Section 90

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU

Ajit Vasant Pai, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 741/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri H. Anil Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri K R Narayana, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(1)(a)Section 139(3)Section 139(5)Section 142Section 143(1)(a)Section 154

virtue of being a Partner in a Firm Liable for Tax Audit. (Vide explanation 2 (a)(iii) to the fourth Proviso of Section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Page 2 of 9 due date for Asst Year 2017-18 was 07/11/2017 vide Notification F.No.225/270/2017/ITA.II dated ... under sub-section (5) to section 139. As per the provisions of section 139(5) if the assessee has furnished the return under section 139(1) and subsequently discloses any wrong statement therein or which in his opinion is wrong then he can revise the return at any time before

Legacy Global Projects Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 846/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Oct 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Arvind S., CAFor Respondent: Shri Gudimella V P Pavan Kumar
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 34(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 43B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND Ms. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT

The Goa Hindu Association, Mumbai vs. ITO (Exemption)-2(4), Mumbai

In the result, the present appeal is allowed

ITA 1723/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2022AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Shankar JalgarFor Respondent: Shri Rajiv Singh
Section 11(2)Section 11(2)(a)Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 154

that the Appellant failed to file Form 10 electronically before the due date for filing of the return under Section 139(1) of the Act. 6. It is no longer res integra that the provision for filing Form No. 10 electronically before the due date of filing the Return

Satya Securities Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 3(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1472/MUM/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri A.K. TibrewalFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang B. Irani
Section 148Section 250Section 40A(3)Section 68

satisfied in the present case. There is no dispute that return of income was filed by the assessee under section 139(1) of the Act. Further, from the perusal of the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment, as noted above, we find that there is not even an allegation

DCIT 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Satya Securities Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6671/MUM/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri A.K. TibrewalFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang B. Irani
Section 148Section 250Section 40A(3)Section 68

satisfied in the present case. There is no dispute that return of income was filed by the assessee under section 139(1) of the Act. Further, from the perusal of the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment, as noted above, we find that there is not even an allegation

Pivotree Solutions India Private Limited (Formerly Known As Bridge Sgi Solutions India Private Limited), Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 799/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Ms. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT

Pivotree Solutions India Private Limited (Formerly Known As Bridge Sgi Solutions India Private Limited), Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 798/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Ms. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT

Ramakrishnappa Nagaraj, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 795/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K R Narayana, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 34(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Ms. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT

Indauto Filters, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 719/BANG/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri K G Acharya, CAFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayana, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 32

have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials on record. It is not in dispute that in the instant case, return under section 139(1) was filed belatedly. Hence, the assessee is not entitled to file a revised return under section 139(5) of the Act going

Nicon Infra LLP, Mumbai vs. Addll/Jy/DCIT/ITO, NFAC, Delhi

ITA 187/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Oct 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyalnicon Infra Llp. D-5, Nutan Nagar, Gurunanak Marg, Bandra (West), Mumbai-400050. Pan: Aaifn0137D ...... Appellant Vs. Additional /Joint/Deputy/Acit/Ito, National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Jitendra Singh, Adv. & Sh. Om Kandalkar, Respondent By : Sh. Chetan M. Kacha, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 25/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20/10/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As [‘Nfac’] Dated 28.12.2021 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As [‘The Act’] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Sh. Jitendra Singh, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Chetan M. Kacha, Sr.DR
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 250Section 44ASection 44a

without appreciating the fact that the return of income was filed by the appellant within the due date under section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 i.e. by 30/9/2018. 2. The learned CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the fact that the appellant ... under section 44ab where the due date was 30/9/2018 and the appellant had filed the return of income within the due date under section 139(1) for the said Assessment Year. 3. The learned CIT (A) passed the order without considering the principles of natural justice since any opportunity

Sara Trans Industries, Mumbai vs. NFAC, Delhi

In the result, appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1550/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Oct 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Shiv P. SinghFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

contributions are not paid within the time prescribed under the relevant statute, if those contributions are paid before the due date prescribed under section 139(1) of the Act, the employer shall be entitled to deductions as provided under section 36(1) of the Act. 7. On the other hand

DCIT- CC-3(1), Mumbai vs. Nirmal Lifestyle (Pune) Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, we agree with the findings and formulas given by the Ld

ITA 3088/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Dr. Mahesh Akhade - CIT(DR)For Respondent: Sh. Bhadresh Doshi
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “B”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN

Bangalore Dor Tech Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 826/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Oct 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Arvind Reddy, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gudimella V P Pavankumar
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 34(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Ms. PADMAVATHY S