“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)

The Acropolis Co .Op. Shg. Soc. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy.CIT CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 284/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Om Prakash Kantआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 284/Mum/2022 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Vishal D. ShahFor Respondent: Shri. Kiran P. Unavekar

Section 139Section 143(1)Section 80Section 80ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(2)(d)

paper book. According to the said acknowledgement, the return of income has been filed on 29/09/2018. Further, we find that explanation (2) below section 139(1) of the Act, has defined due date for filing a return of income in case of a person (other than the company), whose accounts

Atul Dushyant Lall, Mumbai vs. ITO 34 (1) (2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2279/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Kirit ShethFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain, Sr. AR

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 139(9)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 253(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH

Minim Charitable Foundation, Bandra West vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal, Mumbai

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

ITA 1840/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Om Prakash Kantआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1840/Mum/2021 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2016-17

For Appellant: Mr. Sambhav ShahFor Respondent: Shri. Kiran P. Unavekar

Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 139(1)

noted that as per law, the form No. 10 should be filed within the time allowed for furnishing the return of income under section 139(1) of the Act mentioning the amount being accumulated and specifying the purpose of accumulation. The Ld. Assessing Officer vide notice dated 05/11/2018 asked ... Income-tax Rules; 1962. This notice has to be made before the expiry of the due date of filing return under section 139(1). There are enclosures and details to be submitted along with the said Form. These are: 1. A resolution passed by the governing body of the organisation

Amit Sanap, Kalyan vs. DCIT CC 1, Thane

In the result, appeal by the assessee for assessment year 2007–08

ITA 682/MUM/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2022AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Shailja Rai

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH

Amit Sanap, Kalyan vs. DCIT CC 1, Thane

In the result, appeal by the assessee for assessment year 2007–08

ITA 681/MUM/2020[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2022AY 2004-05

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Shailja Rai

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH

Amit Sanap, Kalyan vs. DCIT CC 1, Thane

In the result, appeal by the assessee for assessment year 2007–08

ITA 680/MUM/2020[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2022AY 2003-04

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Shailja Rai

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH

Hitesh Chhatwal, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC -5(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed while for the appeal of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 6418/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Mani JainFor Respondent: Vinay Sinha

Section 54F

authorities below and various decisions cited by the 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

Huhtamaki Ppl Ltd.[As A Successor to Positive Packaging Industries Ltd], Mumbai vs. Dy CIT 14 (2)91), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 8042/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘K‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & MS.KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER M/s. Huhtamaki

DCIT 13(2)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Sodexo Technical Services India Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 508/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

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

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” Bench, Mumbai Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) & Shri Rahul Chaudhary (JM) I.T.A. No. 508/Mum/2022 (A.Y

Rashmi Infrastructure Developers Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT-3(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3243/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Section 131Section 133ASection 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 245D(1)Section 245D(4)Section 80I

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘D‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Rashmi Infrastructure Developers Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT -3(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3128/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Section 131Section 133ASection 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 245D(1)Section 245D(4)Section 80I

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘D‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER

M/S. Steel Fab Engineers, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 26(3) (7), Mumbai

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

ITA 2136/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2022AY 2017-18

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

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” Bench, Mumbai Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) & Shri Kuldip Singh (JM) I.T.A. No. 2136/Mum/2021 (A.Y

M/S. Ujjain Waste Management Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. WD 15 (3) (1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2083/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

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

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” Bench, Mumbai Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) & Shri Kuldip Singh (JM) I.T.A. No. 2083/Mum/2021 (A.Y

M/S. Kalyan Gas Services, Mumbai vs. CIT (A) NFAC, Thane

ITA 2028/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jain, D.R

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI BASKARAN BR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KULDIP SINGH

Pentas Landscape Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ADIT CPC, Bengaluru, Thane

ITA 1955/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2018-19 & Assessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Shailesh Bandi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Pophare, D.R

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

beyond the due date under the PF & ESIC Act but before the due date of filing the return of income under section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’). The Assessing Officer (AO)/CPC by invoking the provision contained under section 36(1

Pentas Landscape Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ADIT, CPC, Bangalore, Thane

ITA 1954/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jun 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2018-19 & Assessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Shailesh Bandi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Pophare, D.R

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

Preety Arora, Mumbai vs. ADIT (CPC), Mumbai

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

ITA 1515/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalpreety Arora Vs. Adit (Cpc) 96, Shanghrila Shahid Karnataka Bhagatsingh Road Colaba 560100 Maharashtra – 400005 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aadpa3141M Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ms.Pooja Hasrajani Respondent By : Mr. R.A. Dhyani Date Of Hearing 08.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 15.06.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The A.O. U/S 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, For A.Y. 2018-19. The Assessee Has Assailed The Impugned Order On The Following Grounds Before Us:

For Appellant: Ms.Pooja HasrajaniFor Respondent: Mr. R.A. Dhyani

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 ... contribution is ITA No.1515/Mum/2021 A.Y.2018-19 3 Preety Arora Vs.ADIT(CPC) 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

G R Chandrashekar Naidu, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 249/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Jun 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Ms.Sumangala Ranga, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Besaganni, 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 AY 2018- 19 and therefore, deduction was allowable under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 43B of the Act as applicable ... assessee has paid 3 ITA Nos.248-249/Bang/2022 Sri G.R Chandrashekar Naidu. 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

G R Chandrashekar Naidu, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 248/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Ms.Sumangala Ranga, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Besaganni, Addl.CIT-DR

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

Rishabh Metals and Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. CPC, DCIT -Cir 1(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 327/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singhrishabh Metals & Vs. Dcit, Circle- 1(3)(1) Chemicals Pvt Ltd, Aayakar Bhavan, 4Th Floor, Eros Theater Mk Road, Bldg, J.T.Road, Mumbai-400020. Churchgate, Mumbai-400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacr2214E Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri Pankaj Kumar.Dr Date Of Hearing 23.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 27.06.2022 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), New Delhi Passed U/S 143(1) & 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar.DR

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 192Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40

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