“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)

Vishnu Sadu Gade, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 3, Thane

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 25/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharshi () & Kavitha Rajagopal () Vishnu Sadu Gade Vs Dcit, Circle-3, Thane 6Th Floor, Ashar It Park, Wagle C-3, 302, Ashar Estate Shreenagar, Thane (W) Industrial Estate, Road No.26Z Pan : Aabpg4702C Thane (W) – 400 604 Appellant Respondent

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

date specified in the relevant Act; but was paid before the due date for filing of 2 return of income under section 139(1). Aggrieved by the said order, the Assessee was in appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), who confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer with regard to disallowance ... ESIC after the due date specified in the relevant Acts but paid before the due date of filing the return of income under section 139(1). The only substantial issue that arises from this appeal is whether the disallowance of Rs.22,11,306/- on account of late payment of employees

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(3), Bangalore vs. Shri. T. Nadakrishna, Bangalore

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 575/BANG/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 May 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L., A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R

Section 132Section 153ASection 37(1)Section 40A(3)

ITA Nos.1658 to 1661/Bang/2018, ITA No.127/Bang/2020 & ITA 575/Bang/2020 M/s. SPR Spirits Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore & T. Nadakrishna, Bangalore IN THE INCOME

M/S. Spr Spirits Private Limited (Formerly Known As Spr Group Holdings Private Limited), Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(3), Bangalore

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 127/BANG/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 May 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L., A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R

Section 132Section 153ASection 37(1)Section 40A(3)

ITA Nos.1658 to 1661/Bang/2018, ITA No.127/Bang/2020 & ITA 575/Bang/2020 M/s. SPR Spirits Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore & T. Nadakrishna, Bangalore IN THE INCOME

M/S Spr Spirits Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -1 (3), Bengaluru

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 1661/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L., A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R

Section 132Section 153ASection 37(1)Section 40A(3)

ITA Nos.1658 to 1661/Bang/2018, ITA No.127/Bang/2020 & ITA 575/Bang/2020 M/s. SPR Spirits Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore & T. Nadakrishna, Bangalore IN THE INCOME

M/S Spr Spirits Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -1 (3), Bengaluru

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 1660/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L., A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R

Section 132Section 153ASection 37(1)Section 40A(3)

ITA Nos.1658 to 1661/Bang/2018, ITA No.127/Bang/2020 & ITA 575/Bang/2020 M/s. SPR Spirits Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore & T. Nadakrishna, Bangalore IN THE INCOME

M/S Spr Spirits Pvt.Ltd., Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -1 (3), Bengaluru

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 1659/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 May 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L., A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R

Section 132Section 153ASection 37(1)Section 40A(3)

ITA Nos.1658 to 1661/Bang/2018, ITA No.127/Bang/2020 & ITA 575/Bang/2020 M/s. SPR Spirits Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore & T. Nadakrishna, Bangalore IN THE INCOME

M/S Spr Spirits Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle - 1 (3), Bengaluru

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 1658/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 May 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L., A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R

Section 132Section 153ASection 37(1)Section 40A(3)

ITA Nos.1658 to 1661/Bang/2018, ITA No.127/Bang/2020 & ITA 575/Bang/2020 M/s. SPR Spirits Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore & T. Nadakrishna, Bangalore IN THE INCOME

Paramount Health Services & Insurance Tpa Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. CIT (A), Mumbai

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

ITA 2548/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai26 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhparamount Health Vs. Cit(A) Services & Insurance Tpa Nfac, Delhi Pvt. Limited, 1St Floor, Elite Auto House, 54-A, M Vasanji Marg, Mumbai – 400 069 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaccp4465H Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Rajesh S. ShahFor Respondent: Vranda U. Matkari

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

Insurance TPA Pvt.ltd. Vs. CIT(A) NFAC per PF and ESIC Act, but made before the due date of filing the return under section 139 (1). 2. The learned CIT(Appeals) erred in concluding that the amendments made by the Finance Act 2021 to Explanation ... 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

K P R Cars Private Limited, Mysore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 91/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. K P R Cars Private Ltd. Deputy Commissioner Of No. 162, New Bannimantap Income Tax Extn., Mandi Mohalla Vs. Centralised Processing Mysore 570021 Centre Pan No : Aaeck3438R Bangalore Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Hemant Pai, Ca Respondent By : Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate Standing Counsel For Department Date Of Hearing : 26.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26 .05.2022 O R D E R Perb.R. Baskaran: The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Challenging The Order Dated 12/11/2021Passed By Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi & It Relates To The Assessment Year 2018-19. The Solitary Issue Urged In This Appeal Relates To Disallowance Of Employees Contribution To Provident Fund& Esi Of Rs.21,63,054/- Made Under Section 36(1)(Va) Of The Income-Tax Act,1961 ['The Act' For Short] In Ay 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For Ay 2018-19 On 28.03.2019. The Return Of Income Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Act, Wherein The Disallowance Of Rs. 21,63,054/- Was Made U/S 36(1)(Va) Of The Act On The Ground That The Employees Contribution M/S. Kpr Cars Private. Ltd. Page 2 To Pf & Esi Has Been Paid By The Assessee Beyond The Due Date Prescribed In The Respective Acts.

For Appellant: Shri Hemant Pai, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” “A’’BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI B. R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2018

M/S. Surya Enterprise, Bangalore vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 310/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 May 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2019-20 M/S. Surya Enterprise Assistant Director Of No. 50, Residency Road Income Tax Bangalore 560025 Vs. Central Processing Unit Pan No : Bangalore Aavfs2416H Appellant Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate Standing Counsel For Department Date Of Hearing : 26.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.05.2022 O R D E R Perb.R. Baskaran: The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Challenging The Order Dated 03/12/2021Passed By Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi & It Relates To The Assessment Year 2019-20. The Solitary Issue Urged In This Appeal Relates To Disallowance Of Employees Contribution To Provident Fund & Esi Of Rs.1,56,385/- Made U/S 36(1)(Va) Of The Income-Tax Act,1961 ['The Act' For Short]

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” “A’’BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI B. R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2019

Gayathri Papanna, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Centralised Processing Centre, Bangalore

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

ITA 280/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 May 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaranassessmentyear:2019-20 Gayathri Papanna Deputy Commissioner Of #67 4Th Cross, 2Nd Main Income Tax Hosahalli Centralised Processing Centre Vs. Vijayanagar Bangalore Bengaluru 560040 Pan No : Brypp3124J Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. R.E. Balasubramaniam, Ca Respondent By : Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate Standing Counsel For Department Date Of Hearing : 25.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.05.2022 O R D E R Perb.R. Baskaran: The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Challenging The Order Dated 03/12/2021Passed By Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi & It Relates To The Assessment Year 2019-20. The Solitary Issue Urged In This Appeal Relates To Disallowance Of Rs.11,20,008/- , Being Employees Contribution To Provident Fund& Esi, Made Under Section 36(1)(Va) Of The Income-Tax Act,1961 ['The Act' For Short] In Ay 2019-20. 2. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For Ay 2019-20 On 13.10.2019. The Return Of Income Wasprocessed U/S 143(1) Of The Ac, Wherein The Disallowance Of Rs.11,20,008/- Was Made U/S Gayathri Papanna Page 2 36(1)(Va) Of The Act On The Ground That The Employees Contribution To Pf & Esi Has Been Paid By The Assessee Beyond The Due Date Prescribed In The Respective Acts.

For Appellant: Shri. R.E. Balasubramaniam, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” “C’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI B. R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AssessmentYear:2019-20

N. Narasimha Murthy, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 237/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 May 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Smt Sumangala Ranga, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” “C’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI B. R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.236 & 237/Bang/2022

N. Narasimha Murthy, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 236/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Smt Sumangala Ranga, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” “C’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI B. R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.236 & 237/Bang/2022

M/S. Sun Manufacturing Solutions, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(2)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 712/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Sun Manufacturing Solutions The Income Tax Officer Sy. No. 151, 11Th Main Road Ward – 6(2)(1) Peenya Indl. Area, 3Rd Phase Bengaluru Vs. Laggere Village Bengaluru 560058 Pan No : Abyfs6836P Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Miss Sunaiana Bhatia, Ca Respondent By : Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate Standing Counsel For Department Date Of Hearing : 25.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.05.2022 O R D E R Perb.R. Baskaran: The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Challenging The Order Dated 30/09/2021Passed By Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi & It Relates To The Assessment Year 2018-19. The Solitary Issue Urged In This Appeal Relates To Disallowance Of Rs.3,75,531/-, Being Employees Contribution To Provident Fund& Esi, Made Under Section 36(1)(Va) Of The Income-Tax Act,1961 ['The Act' For Short] In Ay 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For Ay 2018-19 On 28.03.2019. The Return Of Income Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Act, Wherein The Disallowance Of Rs.7,65,472/- Was Made U/S M/S. Sun Manufacturing Solutions Page 2 36(1)(Va) Of The Act On The Ground That The Employees Contribution To Pf & Esi Has Been Paid By The Assessee Beyond The Due Date Prescribed In The Respective Acts. The Assessee Filed A Rectification Petition Objecting To The Disallowance Made & In The Rectification Order, The Addition Was Sustained To The Extent Of Rs.3,75,531/-.

For Appellant: Miss Sunaiana Bhatia, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” “C’’BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI B. R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2018

M/S. Meremma Basavaraj Belli, Mumbai vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengalure

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 685/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Devendra JainFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Bagchi, Sr. A.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)Section 250Section 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