← 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)

M/S. Arshiya Rail Infrastucture Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT - CC-6(4), Mumbai

In the result appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 574/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Piyush Chhajed a/wFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain
Section 115Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 153C

maintaining the infrastructure facility etc. to Indian Railways. For the year under consideration, assessee filed its return of income on 30/09/2012 under section 139(1) of the Act declaring net loss at Rs. 21,79,30,180 and book profit at Rs. 7,67,96,699. The case ... 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. Thus, in order to determine the validity of the impugned reassessment proceedings, in the present case, now it needs to be examined whether there

DCIT Central Circle 5(3), Mumbai vs. Breach Candy Swimming Bath Trust, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue for AY 2014-15 is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal for AY 2015-16 is dismissed

ITA 1445/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1445 & 1446/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15 & 2015-16) Breach Candy Swimming Dcit Cc– 5(3), बिधम/ Bath Trust R. No. 1906, 19Th Floor, Air Mumbai India Building, Nariman Vs. Point, Mumbai-40 021 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaatb0133F (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By Dr. Mahesh Akhade, Ld. Dr : प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Rajeev Waglay, Ld. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 08.09.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 08.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeals Have Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Impugned Order Of Even Date 24.12.2021, Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-53, Mumbai For The Quantum Of Assessment Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 For Ay 2014-15 & 2015-16. 2

For Respondent: Shri Rajeev Waglay, Ld. AR
Section 10(15)(iv)Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)Section 133ASection 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JM & SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, AM आयकरअपीलसं

Scorditte Stainless India Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 5(3) (1), Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No. 1 to 3 raised by the Appellant are allowed

ITA 2002/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Sept 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Rajkumar SinghFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Bagchi
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "E" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Scorodite

Sureaksha DB Realty, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 30(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 482/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Suraksha Db Realty The Dy. Commissioner Of Behind Orchid Suburbia, Ground Income-Tax 30(3), Floor, Off; Link Road, Kandivali Room No.601, C-13, Vs. 6Th Floor, Bkc, (West), Mumbai-400 067 Mumbai-400 051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Abofs0694R Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta, Ar Department By : Shri Op Sharma, Cit Dr

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri OP Sharma, CIT DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 69CSection 80

Assessment Year 2011-12. However, in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act, assessee has submitted to treat the return filed under section 139(1) of the Act on 30 September 2011 as return filed in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act. The learned Assessing Officer examined ... learned Assessing Officer held that physical return filed on 30 September 2011 is not a valid return filed under section 139(1) of the Act. The Assessing Officer relied upon the decision of co-ordinate Bench in case of shri Dwarkadas G. Panchmatiya vs. ACIT in ITA No. 4727/Mum/2012

Ksb Care Charitable Trust, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer (Exem) 1 (4), Mumbai

ITA 1760/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singhksb Care Charitable Vs. Ito (Exm)- 1(4) Trust Piramal Chambers, C/O Ksb Ltd Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbaipune Road, Mumbai-400012. Pimpri, Pune-411018. Pan/Gir No. : Aabtk4311M Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Biren Gabhawala.Ar Respondent By : Shri Vivek Anand Ojha.Dr Date Of Hearing 30.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 05.09.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Cit(A)- National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Delhi Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Biren Gabhawala.ARFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Anand Ojha.DR
Section 11(1)Section 11(2)Section 11(2)(C)Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT

DCIT 2(3) (1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Nisa Induatrial Services Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 1475/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Sept 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1475/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S Nisa Industrial Dcit-2(3)(1) Services Pvt. Ltd. R. No. 552, Aayakar Bhavan, बिधम/ 509, Magnum Tower, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Lokhandwala Complex, Vs. Cross Road No. 2, Andheri West, Mumbai- 400 058 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaacn1283H (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Dr. Mahesh Akhade, Ld. Dr प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : None सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 08.09.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 08.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Impugned Order Dated 31.03.2022, Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, In Relation To Adjustment Made U/S 143(1) For The Ay 2019-20. 2

For Appellant: Dr. Mahesh AkhadeFor Respondent: None
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 80

disallowance does not come into play when the payment is made well before the due date of filing the income tax return under section 139(1). Viewed thus also, the impugned adjustment is vitiated in law, and we must delete the same for this short reason as well

M/S Privasia Holdings Private Limited, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 960/MUM/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Sept 2022AY 2009-10
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 72

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘SMC‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SMT KAVITA RAJAGOPAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER M/s

The Dadabhai Kavasji Tata School Trust, Na

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1637/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Sept 2022AY 2015-16
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 12A(1)(B)Section 12A(1)(b)Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 44A

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” Bench, Mumbai Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (JM) I.T.A. No. 1637/Mum/2022

Private Eye Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 681/BANG/2022[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Sept 2022AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Sudheendra B.R., AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Shankar Prasad K., Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 2Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 6

fund such as provident fund shall be allowed if it is paid on or before the due date as contemplated under Section 139(1) of the IT Act. This provision has nothing to do with the consequences, provided for under the PF Act/PF Scheme/ESI Act, for not depositing the "contribution ... date under the provisions of the PF scheme/Act, he deposited the contribution to the PF/ESI fund before the due date contemplated under Section 139(1) of the Act. 17. Section 6 of the PF Act provides for contributions and matters which may be provided for in Schemes. Paragraph

Vinodkumar Lakshmipathi, Bangalore vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 680/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Navaneeth Kini, A.RFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayana, D.R
Section 139Section 143(1)Section 90

have specifically provided that the FTC would be disallowed if the assessee does not file Form 67 within the due date prescribed under section 139(1) of the Act. It was submitted that that there are many sections in the Act which specifically deny deduction or exemption or relief

Mr. G R Chandrashekar Naidu, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 677/BANG/2022[2020-21]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore06 Sept 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Smt.Suman Gala Ranga, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.K.R.Narayanan, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Employees’ Provident Fund (PF), although the said amount was paid before the due date of filing the return of income under section 139(1) of the Act for A.Y. 2020- 21 and therefore, deduction was allowable under section 36(1)(va) read with Section 43B of the Act as applicable ... First Appellate Authority. It was contended that assessee has paid the employees’ contribution prior to the due date of filing of return under section 139(1) of the Act. Therefore, it was submitted assessee is entitled to deduction of the employees’ contribution of PF and ESI having regard

Grama Vidyodaya Sangha (Regd), Mysuru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 345/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri K. Kotresh, A.RFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayana, D.R
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(2)Section 143(1)Section 234A

referred to in clause (a) of section 11(2) of the Act is not furnished on or before the due date specified in Section 139(1) of the Act, the income not so applied for a charitable and religious purpose in India under clause (2) to explanation to section

Cerner Healthcare Solutions India Private Limited (Earlier Known As Cerner India Health Services Private Limited), Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 274/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Sumeet Khurana, CAFor Respondent: Shri V S Chakrapani, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 37Section 43B

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

Saidatar Co-Op Credit Society Ltd., Borivali West vs. ITO 32(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1613/MUM/2021[A Y 2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Sept 2022

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita Kaushik
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 145(3)Section 250Section 69ASection 80ASection 80P(2)(a)

order to claim deduction under section 80P, requirement to file the return of income on or before the due date specified under section 139(1) of the Act is relevant only from assessment year commencing on or after 1st day of April 2018, as per section 80AC

Lajwanti Manchanda Trust, Mumbai vs. ITO 24 (2) (5), Mumbai

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

ITA 1482/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Sh. Dhaval ShahFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita Kaushik
Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN

Archana Foundation, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Exemptions 1(1), Piramal Chambers Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1431/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyalarchana Foundation More House 28, New India Housing Society North South Road No.11, Jvpd, Juhu, Mumbai-400049. Pan: Aabta0873E ...... Appellant Vs. Ito (Exemption)-1(1), Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Mumbai-400012. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Amit Agrawal Respondent By : Sh. Pramod Nikalje Date Of Hearing : 13/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 05/09/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M:

For Appellant: Sh. Amit AgrawalFor Respondent: Sh. Pramod Nikalje
Section 11(1)Section 11(2)Section 12A

income as stipulated under section 11(2) were satisfied except that Form No. 10 was not submitted before stipulated time as provided under section 139(1) but same was filed in physical mode before completion of assessment proceedings and there was no dispute between rival parties as to genuineness

M/S. Mittal Clothing Company, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 673/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2018-29

For Appellant: Shri Rajgopal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri K Sankar Ganesh, JCIT (DR)
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

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

Sri. M. Nagaraja, Mysore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 2(1), Mysore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1905/BANG/2019[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Sept 2022AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 1999-2000

For Respondent: Shri S. Parthasarathi
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 139(5)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 234BSection 263

Thus, the return was filed on 22.02.2022 declaring income of Rs.46,20,677/-. The return filed on 22.03.2022 was neither a return under Section 139(1) nor under Section 139(4) of the Act. Further, no notice under Section 148 was issued then. Accordingly, the return filed

The ACIT Cent. Cir -5(4), Mumbai vs. Shri Nitan Chhatwal, Mumbai

In the result, the both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2244/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Sept 2022AY 2015-16
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

orders of authorities below and various decisions cited by Ld AR. In the instant case, the assessee filed the return of income under section 139(1) of the Act on 29-09-2012 which was revised on 27-09-2013 and assessment was framed vide order dated 12.11.2014 passed ... assessee filed return of income on 26-7- 2013 for assessment year 2012-13, even though belatedly as to the time prescribed under section 139(1), but within the time provided under section 139. On receipt of return, assessing officer has time to issue notice under section 143(2)/142

ACIT Cent. Cir -5(4), Mumbai vs. Shri Nitan Chhatwal, Mumbai

In the result, the both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2243/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Sept 2022AY 2013-14
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

orders of authorities below and various decisions cited by Ld AR. In the instant case, the assessee filed the return of income under section 139(1) of the Act on 29-09-2012 which was revised on 27-09-2013 and assessment was framed vide order dated 12.11.2014 passed ... assessee filed return of income on 26-7- 2013 for assessment year 2012-13, even though belatedly as to the time prescribed under section 139(1), but within the time provided under section 139. On receipt of return, assessing officer has time to issue notice under section 143(2)/142