“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 Privilege Power & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle- 5(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 785/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: The Bench In Order To Assist The Bench, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Appeal Ex-Parte, Without The Presence Of The Assessee.

Section 139(1)Section 40Section 43Section 43B

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” Bench, Mumbai Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) & Shri Rahul Chaudhary (JM) I.T.A. No. 785/Mum/2019 (A.Y

Income Tax Officer 8(1)(4), Mumbai vs. M/S.Quest 2 Travel.Com India Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1527/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant() & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal () Ito 8(1)(4), Mumbai Vs M/S Quest 2 Travel.Com India Pvt Ltd 28Th Floor, The Ruby, Senapati Bapat Room No.662, M.K. Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400 020 Marg, Dadar (West), Mumbai-400 028 Pan : Aaaco0519P Appellant Respondent

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 43Section 43B

Explanation 3D thereto and that the said interest was paid after the due date of filing of return of income under section 139(1) and also that the assessee is not entitled to the claim on the ground that the said interest expense towards OD account pertains to scheduled bank

Microland Foundation, Bangalore vs. The Income Tax Officer (Exemptions), Ward-2, Bangalore

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

ITA 411/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Sri.K.R.Narayana, Addl.CIT-DR

Section 11(2)Section 13(9)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 3

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “B”, BANGALORE Before Shri Chandra Poojari, AM & Shri George George K, JM

Microland Foundation, Bangalore vs. The Income Tax Officer (Exemptions), Ward-2, Bangalore

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

ITA 410/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Sri.K.R.Narayana, Addl.CIT-DR

Section 11(2)Section 13(9)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 3

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “B”, BANGALORE Before Shri Chandra Poojari, AM & Shri George George K, JM

Kya Apparel LLP, Mumbai vs. Dy. Comm of Income Tax, CPC, Bengluru

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

ITA 1732/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalekya Apparel Llp Vs. Dcit, Cpc H. No. 434/6, Gala 6 To P.O.Box.1,Electronic 11, Bldg-A-7, Harihar City, Corporation, Dapode Bangalore.560100. Road, Mumbai – 421302 Pan/Gir No. : Aamfk3840Q Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ms.Pooja Harjajani.Ar Respondent By : Mr.R.P. Veena.Dr Date Of Hearing 24.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 25.08.2022 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(1) & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal.

For Appellant: Ms.Pooja Harjajani.ARFor Respondent: Mr.R.P. Veena.DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

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

Ashida Electronics Pvt Ltd, Thane vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2050/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyalashida Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Plot No. A-308, Ashida House, Road No.21, Wagle Estate, Thane (West)-400604. Pan: Aabca5020G ...... Appellant Vs. Dcit, Centralized Processing Center, Income Tax Department, Bengaluru-560500 ..... Respondent Appellant By : Ms. Utkarsha Bhanap Respondent By : Sh. Mehul Jain Date Of Hearing : 02/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/08/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M:

For Appellant: Ms. Utkarsha BhanapFor Respondent: Sh. Mehul Jain

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL

Jasbir Singh Kaberwal, Mumbai vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengluru

In the result, this appeal is allowed

ITA 1788/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2022AY 2019-20

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 44A

long as the payments towards provident fund dues are made before the due date of filing of the income tax return under section 139(1), even beyond the permissible time limit under the relevant statute under which payment is made, the payments so made are deductible in the computation ... payments made beyond the due date under the relevant statute but before the due date of filing of the income tax return under section 139(1) cannot attract the disallowance for the reason of delay. Once again learned counsel has referred to and relied upon the decisions of the coordinate

Jasbir Singh Kaberwal, Mumbai vs. ADIT CPC, Bengluru

In the result, this appeal is allowed

ITA 1787/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2022AY 2019-20

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 2(24)Section 36(1)(va)Section 44A

DCIT Central Circle -4(3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Mindspace Business Parks Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 434/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri T. Sankar

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

operating SEZ project at Airoli, Navi Mumbai and Pocharam, Hyderabad. For A.Y. 2015-16, the assessee filed its return of income under Section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") on 28.11.2015 declaring total loss of (-) ₹.30,15,28,157. The total loss reported in the return ... assessee under section 139(5) of the Act on 22.03.2016 declaring the same loss as was reported in the return filed under section 139(1) of the Act. Thereafter, the case was selected for scrutiny and notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued

Dy.CIT Central Circle-4(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Mindspace Business Parks Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 433/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri T. Sankar

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

Green Valley Developers, Mumbai vs. DCIT- Central-RG. 7 (3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 212/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharshi () & Kavitha Rajagopal () Green Valley Developers Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax S-07, 2Nd Floor, Glomax Mall Central Range-7(3), Mumbai Room No.655, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Plot No.17, 18 & 19, Sector 2 Station Road, Kharghar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Navi Mumbai-410 210 Pan : Aagfg6558D Appellant Respondent

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

Assessing Officer was of the view that the assessee has failed to file its return of income for the impugned year under section 139(1), which, in itself was an incorrect 7 fact. We would like to place our reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court

Duck Creek Technologies India LLP, Mumbai vs. ACIT- Circle 26 (1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1898/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 234CSection 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 44A

date of under section 36(1)(va) of the Act but before the due date of filing of return of income under section 139(1) of the Act Levy of incorrect interest u/s 234C of the Act 6. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding CPC's contention ... long as the payments towards provident fund dues are made before the due date of filing of the income tax return under section 139(1), even beyond the permissible time limit under the relevant statute under which payment is made, the payments so made are deductible in the computation

M/S. Champion Dreams, Mumbai vs. Pr. Comm of Income Tax, Mumbai

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

ITA 421/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 263

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” Bench, Mumbai Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (JM) I.T.A. No. 421/Mum/2022

DCIT, Cir-6(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Diageo India Pvt.Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 2858/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Diageo India P. Ltd. Dcit 4Th Floor, Nicholas Piramal Tower Rg 6(2)(2) Peninsula Corporate Park, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Mk Road, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 013 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaci 3378 L Diageo India P. Ltd. Dcit 4Th Floor, Nicholas Piramal Tower Rg 6(2)(2) Peninsula Corporate Park, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Mk Road, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 013 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar &For Respondent: Ms. Vatsalaa Jha, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 253Section 92BSection 92C

without appreciating that the return of income was filed before due date of filing of return of income as per section 139(1) of the Act Levy of Interest under section 234B of the Act 28. erred in levying interest under section 234B of the Act Initiation of penalty proceedings

Granada Investments & Finance P .Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 6(3)

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1343/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharshi () & Kavitha Rajagopal () M/S Granada Investments & Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Finance Pvt Ltd (Formerly Known Circle-6(3), Mumbai As M/S Granada Energy Systems Pvt Ltd), 3Rd Floor, Industry Manor Near Century Bazaar, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400 025 Pan : Aaccm0066F Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 264

ground that there is no express provision in the Income-tax Act to reduce the returned income which is against the provision of section 139(1) and 139(5) of the Act and the same cannot be done indirectly by invoking the provisions of section

Diageo India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 6(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1002/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar &For Respondent: Ms. Vatsalaa Jha, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 253Section 92BSection 92C

Tanmoy Ghosh, Maharashtra vs. Circle-3(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 550/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: None

Section 139(1)

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

Tanmoy Ghosh, Maharashtra vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 549/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: None

Section 139(1)

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

Citrix R & D India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 2(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed partly as indicated herein above

ITA 220/BANG/2021[2016-17`]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Aug 2022

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 220/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Citrix R&D India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Prestige Dynasty, Commissioner Of Ground Floor, Income Tax, 33/2, Ulsoor Road, Circle – 2(1)(1), Bangalore – 560042. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aabcn3639C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sumit Khurana, Ca Revenue By : Shri M. Mathivanan, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 04-07-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 25-08-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal By The Assessee Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Assessment Order Dated 30/03/2021 Passed By The National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2016-17 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Mentioned Herein By The Appellant Are Without Prejudice To One Another. 1. That The Order Passed By The Learned Ao To The Extent Prejudicial To The Appellant, Is Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed. Transfer Pricing - 2. That The National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi / Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 2(1)(1), Bangalore ("Assessing Officer" Or "Learned Ao") & The Dispute Resolution Panel - 1 ("Learned Panel" Or "Learned Drp")

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Khurana, CAFor Respondent: Shri M. Mathivanan, CIT-DR

without giving due consideration to the fact that the return of income has been filed within the due date as specified under section 139(1) of the Act. 16. On the facts and in the circumstances the Learned AO erred in leving interest under section 234B of the Act amounting

Muppidathy Sivan Thevar, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1639/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing Of Income Tax Returns U/S.139(1) Of The Act, Could Be Subject Matter Of Adjustment U/S.143(1)(A) Of The Act By The Central Processing Centre (Cpc).

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 44A