← 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 C Raju Multi Speciality Hospital, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(4), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1056/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand H Kalakeri, CIT (DR)
Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 234B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL

K C Raju Multi Speciality Hospital, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(4), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1055/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand H Kalakeri, CIT (DR)
Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 234B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL

Income Tax Officer, Delhi vs. Amira Apparels Ltd, Delhi

In the result, this appeal is partly allowed

ITA 4473/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shrimahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shrisanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.4473/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2017-18 बनाम Income Tax Officer, Amira Apparels Ltd. Room No.375, Central Revenue Building, Vs. 1/16, East Patel Nagar, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Aaaca2992A अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 139(1)Section 250

ITA No.4473/Del/2025 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “B”NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRIMAHAVIR SINGH, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT

JCIT(OSD), Jhandewalan vs. Narendra Aggarwal, Faridabad

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

ITA 1017/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwaljcit (Osd), Jhandewalan, Vs. Narendra Aggarwal, Delhi H.No. 467, Sector-21-A, Fardidabad, Haryana (Pan: Aagpa1441D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Dr.Rakesh Gupta, Adv., Sh. Somil Agarwal, Adv., Saksham Agarwal, Ca & Deepesh Garg, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Amisha S. Gupt, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.11.2025 Date Of Order : 19.12.2025 O R D E R Per Sudhir Kumar, Jm :

For Appellant: Dr.Rakesh Gupta, Adv., Sh. Somil AgarwalFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha S. Gupt, CIT DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 263Section 68

incriminating material found/seized This position would be appreciated from the facts of the case Appellant had filed its original return of income under section 139(1) of the Act on 20-08-2015 declaring an Income of INR 6.20,97.150/-. Subsequently, the case of the appellant was selected for scrutiny

Suman Sangwan, Gurgaon vs. Income Tax Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3497/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘G’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Noida vs. Raghav Bahl, Noida

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1640/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 250

ITA No.1639 & 1640/Del/2023 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “A” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S, JUDICIAL

DCIT Central Circle-1, Noida vs. Raghav Bahl, Noida

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1639/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 250

ITA No.1639 & 1640/Del/2023 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “A” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S, JUDICIAL

Shring Construction Company Pvt. Ltd., Dehradun vs. DCIT, Circle-2, Muzaffarnagar

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 7056/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh, Hon’Blea.Y. : 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Ankit Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

given under section 22(1)/22(2)/34 of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 or which you were required to furnish under section 139(1) or by a notice given have without reasonable cause failed to furnish it within the time allowed and the manner required by the said ... section 139(1) or by such notice. * have without reasonable cause failed to comply with a notice under section 22(4)/23(2) of Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 or under section 142(1)/143(2) of Income Tax Act, 1961. * have concealed the particulars of such income or furnished

Sharad Sarawgi, Giridih vs. ACIT, C. C., Dhanbad

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

ITA 424/RAN/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi18 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.424/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Sharad Sarawgi….... …………….…….…............................……….……Appellant Sarawgi Sadan, Dumri Road, Giridih, Jharkhand- 815301. [Pan: Acspj2613G] Vs. Acit, C.C-Dhanbad………….....….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sumit Dasgupta, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 11, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 18, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ci(A)-3, Patna (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 12.09.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is Part Of The Saraogi Group. A Search & Seizure Operation Under Section 132(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 Was Conducted On The Group On Various Dates, Along With A Survey Under Section 133A Of The Act At Certain Business Premises Of The Group. During The Course Of Search, Cash Aggregating To ₹2,15,50,000 Was Found From The Bedroom Of Shri Santosh Kumar Saraogi. In The Statement Recorded Under Section 132(4), It Was Stated That Cash Of ₹21,20,000 Belonged To The Present Assessee, While The Balance Amount Belonged To Other Concerns. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income Under Section 139(1) For Ay 2021–22 Declaring Total Income Of ₹4,66,180. Subsequently, Notices Under Sections 143(2) & 142(1) Were

Section 131Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 69A

belonged to the present assessee, while the balance amount belonged to other concerns. The assessee filed its return of income under section 139(1) for AY 2021–22 declaring total income of ₹4,66,180. Subsequently, notices under sections 143(2) and 142(1) were I.T.A. No.424/Ran/2024 Sharad Sarawgi issued

Sushil Mitruka, Siliguri vs. DCIT, Circle 1, Siliguri

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2178/KOL/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Dec 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri SK Tulsian, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, DR
Section 139(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148(2)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM

Anita Basak, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 30(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2173/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Anita Basak Ito, Ward 30(2) C/O S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Aayakar Bhawan Dakshin, 2, Advocates 2, Garstin Place, 2 Nd Gariahat Road, (South), Fifth Floor, Suite No.203, Off Hare Vs. Floor, Kolkata-700053, Street, Kolkata-700001, West West Bengal Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Ahhpb5785B Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ruchika Sharma, Dr Date Of Hearing: 04.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.12.2025

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ruchika Sharma, DR
Section 139(1)Section 142Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM

DCIT, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata vs. Raja Shelters Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1760/KOL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, कोलकाता पीठ, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH KOLKATA Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant

DCIT, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata vs. Ashok Kumar Kayan, Kolkata

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

ITA 1757/KOL/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Dec 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata……...…………….……….……….……Appellant Vs. Ashok Kumar Kayan……………………………………….....……...…..…..Respondent 1, R N Mukherjee Road, Dalhousie, Kol-1.. [Pan: Alkpk2298K] Appearances By: Pradeep Dung Dung, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Miraj D Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 04, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 18, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 23.07.2024 Of The Cit(A)-27, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue With A Delay Of 04 Days. The Revenue Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of The Delay. After Considering The Reasons Cited In The Petition For Condonation Of Delay, We Find That The Reasons Are Valid & Consequently, The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Hereby Condoned & We Proceed To Dispose Of The Appeal On Merits.

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

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH KOLKATA Before Shri Rajesh

M/S. Akshara Abasan Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 2(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1638/KOL/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Dec 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 68

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, कोलकाता पीठ, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A”BENCH KOLKATA Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant

Sushil Mitruka, Darjeeling vs. DCIT, Circle 1, Siliguri

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1631/KOL/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Dec 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri SK Tulsian, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, DR
Section 139(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148(2)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM

DCIT, Circle-1, Siliguri vs. Sushil Mitruka, Siliguri

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1613/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri SK Tulsian, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, DR
Section 139(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148(2)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM

The Triplicane Coop Credit Society Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Ward-9(1), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2672/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr.B. Suresh, CAFor Respondent: Mr.R. Raghupathy, Addl.CIT
Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 80ASection 80P

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी एबी टी. वक", "ाियक

R 249 Kulithalai Co-Op Pard Bank Limited, Karur vs. Income Tax Officer, Karur

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

ITA 2543/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. C.I.T
Section 119Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 80ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

reason that the assessee has not filed return of income within the due date as per section 139(1) of the Act. 5. Aggrieved by the action of the CPC, Bengaluru the assessee preferred an appeal on 19.08.2024 before the Ld.CIT(A), with a delay of 472 days. The ld.CIT ... society, filed its return of income for the Assessment Year 2022–23 belatedly on 31.12.2022, as against the extended due date prescribed under section 139(1) of the Act, i.e., 07.11.2022, and claimed a deduction under Chapter VIA, specifically u/s.80P of the Act, amounting to Rs.18

M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Kumbakonam vs. PCIT, Madurai

In the result, the appeal for A

ITA 1126/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. S. Ananthan, F.C.A. &For Respondent: Shri. Bipin C.N., CIT
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 17(2)Section 263Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एबी ट

Ramchandra Kadava Sharma, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

ITA 4360/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Dec 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Mr. Jay Bhansali, ARFor Respondent: Assessee by
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250(6)Section 69C

under section 147 was issued on 03.04.2014, in response to which the assessee filed a letter requesting that the original return filed under section 139(1) on 15.10.2010 for the relevant AY may be treated as return filed in response to notice under section 148 3 Ramchandra Kadava Sharma