← 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. Khoday India Limited, Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 407/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jul 2022AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri V. Sridhar, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 43B

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

Lsi India Research & Development Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 357/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jul 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: Ms. Mahim Goud, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 43B

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

Rapid Global Business |Solutions India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 496/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jul 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2019-20 M/S. Rapid Global Business Solutions India Vs. Assistant Director Of Income Tax, Private Limited, Cpc, 18/7, 1St Floor, Narayan Business Bengaluru. Chambers, Hosur Road, Wilson Garden, Bengaluru – 560 027. Pan : Aaccr 5018 A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Joseph Varghese, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni, Addl. Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 18.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.07.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan: . V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. Joseph Varghese, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

share of the employee’s share of contribution is made on or before due date for furnishing the return of income under section 139(1) of the Act, then the assessee would be entitled to claim deduction. Therefore, the issue is covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka

Bulk Liquid Solutions Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 485/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jul 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri. Rajgopal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

share of the employee’s share of contribution is made on or before due date for furnishing the return of income under section 139(1) of the Act, then the assessee would be entitled to claim deduction. Therefore, the issue is covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka

Bulk Liquid Solutions Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 484/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jul 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri. Rajgopal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

share of the employee’s share of contribution is made on or before due date for furnishing the return of income under section 139(1) of the Act, then the assessee would be entitled to claim deduction. Therefore, the issue is covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka

M/S. Elektrobit India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 142/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jul 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Rahil Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU

M/S. Hyagreeva Hotels & Resorts Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 3, Bangalore

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

ITA 167/BANG/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jul 2022AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Shri Deepesh Wagle, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 10ASection 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 80ASection 80I

assessee was required to file the return of income within the prescribed time as per the provisions of Section 139(1) of the Act and the proviso to section 10A(1A) was nothing but a consequence of failure of the assessee to file the return of income within ... that no such deductions shall be allowed unless the assessee filed his returns of income "on or before the due dates specified under" Section 139 (1) of the Act, there is no question of referring to the extended period permitted under Section 139(4) of the Act to seek

M/S. Hyagreeva Hotels & Resorts Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 3, Bangalore

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

ITA 166/BANG/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jul 2022AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: Shri Deepesh Wagle, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 10ASection 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 80ASection 80I

assessee was required to file the return of income within the prescribed time as per the provisions of Section 139(1) of the Act and the proviso to section 10A(1A) was nothing but a consequence of failure of the assessee to file the return of income within ... that no such deductions shall be allowed unless the assessee filed his returns of income "on or before the due dates specified under" Section 139 (1) of the Act, there is no question of referring to the extended period permitted under Section 139(4) of the Act to seek

Greenglobe Fuelsolutions, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 26(1) (1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 1886/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing Of Return Of Income And, Hence, Allowable As Deduction U/S 36(1)(Va) R.W.S. 43B.

For Appellant: Shri Aditya RamchandraFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Bagchi
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

deposited after the due date specified in the applicable statute but before the due date of filing income tax return prescribed under Section 139(1) of the Act. 4. Being aggrieved, the Appellant filed appeal against intimation/order under Section 143(1), dated 22.08.2019 ITA. No. 1886/Mum/2021 Assessment Year ... dispute that Appellant had deposited the employees‟ contribution of PF and ESIC before the due date of filing of Return under Section 139(1) of the Act, though the same were deposited belatedly beyond the due date specified under the respective statutes. The intimation/order under Section 143(1

Aaryans Security Force, Mumbai vs. CIT (A) NFAC, Delhi

In the result, this appeal is allowed

ITA 1875/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2022AY 2019-20
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 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 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Page ... 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

United Shippers Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT 3 (3), Mumbai

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

ITA 7801/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhunited Shippers Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of 3Rd Floor, Prospect Income Tax-3(3) Chambers, D.N. Road, Air India Building, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaacu0764C Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Aakash Marthak &For Respondent: Ms. Vranda U. Matkari
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 41(1)Section 43B

share of the employee's share of contribution is made on or before due date for furnishing the return of income under section 139(1) of the Act, then the assessee would be entitled to claim deduction. Therefore, the issue is covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka

DCIT- CC- 2(4), Mumbai vs. Shruti Art Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

ITA No.2647/Mum/2016 2007-08

ITA 2649/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2022AY 2009-10
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘E‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & Dy

DCIT -Central Circle-2(4), Mumbai vs. Shruti Art Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

ITA No.2647/Mum/2016 2007-08

ITA 2647/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2022AY 2007-08
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘E‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & Dy

Wm Global Sourcing India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 450/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Jul 2022AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Smt. Rashmi R, Advocate
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 234CSection 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

without appreciating that the Page 2 of 7 Appellant had remitted the same before the due date for filing of ROI under section 139(1) of the Income tax Act, 1961 ["the Act"]. 1.2. The orders of the Learned CIT(A) and Learned ADIT, CPC are per incuriam

P. Rajesh Ship Breaking Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 8(2) (1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1980/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhp. Rajesh Ship Breaking Vs. Acit, Circle 4(3)(2) Pvt. Ltd., 61/2 Lakri Aayakar Bhavan, Bunder, Rey Road, M.K. Road, Darukhana, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai – 400010 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaacp7197G Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: C.V. JainFor Respondent: C.T. Mathews
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

PF/ESIC after due date specified in PF/ESIC Acts but before the due date of filing the return of income as prescribed in section 139(1) of the act. We have perused the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdiction Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Hindustan Organics Chemicals ... share of the employee's share of contribution is made on or before due date for furnishing the return of income under section 139(1) of the Act, then the assessee would be entitled to claim deduction. Therefore, the issue is covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka

Sujan Azad Parikh, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT, CC-7(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 186/MUM/2021[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blesujan Azad Parikh V. Dcit – 7(1) C-701, Beaumonde Tower Room No. 653, 6Th Floor Appasaheb Marathe Marg Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Prabhadevi, Mumbai -400025 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaepp9028R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Hariom Tulsiyan Department By : Shri B.K. Bagchi

For Appellant: Shri Hariom TulsiyanFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Bagchi
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 54F

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI

DCIT, CC- 5(2), Mumbai vs. Sudar Industrial Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the two appeals filed by the revenue are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2727/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri.Hemant KumarFor Respondent: None
Section 143(3)Section 153C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE

Sri Chamundeswari Sugars Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 356/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Jul 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Ms. Pooja Maru, CA
Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

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

Sri Chamundeswari Sugars Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 355/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Jul 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Ms. Pooja Maru, CA
Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

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

Tuff Guard Force Private Limited, Ghatkopar West vs. CIT(Appeals) NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 2450/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Tuff Guard Force Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner Of Income 207, Kails Esplanade, Lbs Marg, Vs. Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Ghatkopar (W), Delhi. Mumbai 400 086 Pan No.Aabcb4892K Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri D.B. Shah. Assessee By : Shri Pankaj Kumar (D.R.) Date Of Hearing : 21.06.2022. Date Of Pronouncement : 12.07.2022. O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, A.M. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dt.28.01.2021 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj Kumar (D.R.)For Respondent: Shri D.B. Shah
Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43Section 438Section 43B

PF/ESIC after due date specified in PF/ESIC Acts but before the due date of filing the return of income as prescribed in section 139(1) of the act. We have perused the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdiction Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Hindustan Organics Chemicals ... share of the employee's share of contribution is made on or before due date for furnishing the return of income under section 139(1) of the Act, then the assessee would be entitled to claim deduction. Therefore, the issue is covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka