“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)

Sri Gajanana Enterprises, Shivamogga vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 706/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for Dept

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

ITA No.706/Bang/2021 Sri Gajanana Enterprises, Shivamogga IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” “C’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI B. R

R.P..Synthetics, Mumbai vs. DCIT CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2264/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon'Ble Shri Sanjay Gargr.P. Synthetics The Dcit Plot No.. R.67, Midc Cpc, Bangalore, Thane Belapur Road, Vs. Karnataka-560500 Navi Mumbai-400 701 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No.Aaefr7566C Assessee By : Shri Vinay Devi, Ar Revenue By : Shri. Anil Gupta, Dr Date Of Hearing: 19.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.05.2022

For Appellant: Shri Vinay Devi, ARFor Respondent: Shri. Anil Gupta, DR

Section 139(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC-II” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER R.P. Synthetics

Dicitex Home Furnishing Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 1 (3) (1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1715/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2022AY 2017-18

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) & Could Be Allowed As Deduction.

Section 139(1)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 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

Triton Maritime Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT -5(3) (1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1628/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2022AY 2019-20

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

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

Keshav Gore Smarak Trust, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (CPC), Banglore

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 5037/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2022AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Milin DattaniFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Thakur

Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154

Appellant is a charitable trust registered under Section 12A of the Act. The Appellant filed its return of income declaring „Nil‟ income under Section 139(1) of the Act on 30.09.2001 (hereinafter referred to as „the Original Return‟). During the relevant previous year, the Appellant suffered capital loss

Shankar Packgings Ltd., Mumbai vs. NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 316/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhm/S Shankar Packagings Vs. National Faceless Appeal Limited , 303, Turf Centre, Delhi Estate, Shakti Mills New Delhi Lane,Off. Dr. E. Moses Road, Mahalaxmi (West) Mumbai – 400011 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaacs8076P Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Apurva R. Shah Respondent By : C.T. Mathews Date Of Hearing 12.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 18.05.2022 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, 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: “1. In Not Adjudicating The Appellant'S Claim On Merits Of The Issue But Merely Holding That The Appellant Ought To Have Filed An Appeal Against The Intimation Issued Under Section 143(1) & Not Against The Order Rejecting The Proposal U/S. 154. 2. In Not Appreciating That By The Said Action The Nfac Has Therefore Approved An Incorrect Act Done Whilst Processing The Return Filed.

For Appellant: Apurva R. ShahFor Respondent: C.T. Mathews

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 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

Nisan Scientific Process Equipments Private Limited, Navi Mumbai vs. Asst. Director of Income Tax, CPC, CPC Bangalore

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

ITA 2031/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai18 May 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos.2030 & 2031/Mum/2021 (A.Ys. 2018-19& 2019-20) Nisan Scientific Process Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Equipments Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax, Cpc R. 587/1, Midc [Dcit-15(1)(2)] Industrial Area Thane Aayakar Bhavan, Belapur Road Rabale Mumbai -560500 Navi Mumbai – 400701 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aabcn5187F Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Harshal AjmeraFor Respondent: C.T. Mathews

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

Nisan Scientific Process Equipments Private Limited, Navi Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, CPC Bangalore

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

ITA 2030/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai18 May 2022AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Harshal AjmeraFor Respondent: C.T. Mathews

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

ACIT CC 22 & 30, Mumbai vs. Murarilal Mittal, Mumbai

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

ITA 6808/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 May 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6808/Mum/2014 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Acit Cc –22, Shri Murarilal Mittal, R. No. 404, 4Th Floor, 1601, Marathon बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Heights, P. B. Marg Mumbai-400 020 Jaibharat Oil Mill, Vs. Lower Parel(W), Mumbai-400 013 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan No. Ahnpm8021D (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant : Shri Murli Mohan, Ld. Dr By प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal, Ld. Ar By सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 18.05.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 18.05.2022 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 24.08.2014 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-39, Mumbai For The Quantum Appeal Of Assessment Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S

For Appellant: Shri Murli MohanFor Respondent: Shri Rajiv

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JM, & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A

Bell Teleservices India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, (CPC), Bangalore

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

ITA 655/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Sanketh Nayak, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT-DR

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “B”, BANGALORE Before Smt.Beena Pillai, JM & Ms.Padmavathy S, AM ITA No.655/Bang/2021 : Asst.Year

Sri. H.S. Ningaiah, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Bangalore

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

ITA 33/BANG/2021[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 May 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Pranav Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)

Section 132Section 153Section 153CSection 234Section 234ASection 250Section 69

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. PADMAVATHY S

M/S. Almech Facades Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. NFAC`, Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 2087/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Shashi BekalFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Pariasamy

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

1)(va) but such dues having been paid before the due date of filing of return of the income as prescribed under section 139(1), the amount is allowable as a deduction as per the provisions of section 43B. We find merit in the aforesaid submissions of the assessee. There ... held that if the employees contribution to PF and ESI is paid within the due date of filing of return of income under section 139(1), then, the amount is allowable as a deduction in view of the provision of section 43B. In view of the afore said, we delete

M/S. P.A.Zaveri, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 2056/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai13 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Aditya RamchandranFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Periasamy

Section 139(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

Vinayak Hirji Mhatre, Mumbai vs. ITO 26(3) (4), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 2012/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai13 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Pariasamy

Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(Va)Section 36(1)(va)

M/S. Aashia Products, Mumbai vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 2007/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Sameer G. DalalFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Pariasamy

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

M/S. Sincetele Info-Solutiions Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ADIT, CPC, Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1986/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Tanmay PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Pariasamy

Section 139(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

1)(va) but such dues having been paid before the due date of filing of return of the income as prescribed under section 139(1), the amount is allowable as a deduction as per the provisions of section 43B. We find merit in the aforesaid submissions of the assessee. There ... 1986/MUM/2021 M/s. Sincetele Info Solutions Pvt. Ltd., PF and ESI is paid within the due date of filing of return of income under section 139(1), then, the amount is allowable as a deduction in view of the provision of section 43B. In view of the afore said, we delete

M/S. Sincetele Info-Solutiions Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst/Dy/ Dir of Income Tax CPC, Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1985/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Tanmay PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Pariasamy

Section 139(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

1)(va) but such dues having been paid before the due date of filing of return of the income as prescribed under section 139(1), the amount is allowable as a deduction as per the provisions of section 43B. We find merit in the aforesaid submissions of the assessee. There ... 1986/MUM/2021 M/s. Sincetele Info Solutions Pvt. Ltd., PF and ESI is paid within the due date of filing of return of income under section 139(1), then, the amount is allowable as a deduction in view of the provision of section 43B. In view of the afore said, we delete

Paper Recycle, Mumbai vs. CIT (A) NFAC, Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1960/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri R.D. KhonaFor Respondent: Smt Shreekala Pardeshi

Section 139(1)Section 2(24)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

Mr. Jitendra Kumar Nahata, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Circle-6(1)(1) Represented by Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 41/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Smt. Sunaina Bhatia, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Sankarganesh K, JCIT (DR)

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 801ASection 801BSection 80ASection 80I

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD

Hipower Support Centre LLP, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 103/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore13 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri. Sushen Srivathsan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT (DR)

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 154Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

amounts paid as contributions towards PF and ESI provided that the payments were made prior to the due date of filing return under Section 139 (1). 3. The Bangalore bench of this tribunal, in Shakuntala Agarbatti Company v DCIT in ITA No. 385/Bang/2021 has applied the dictum in Essae Teraoka