← 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)

DCIT, CC-5(4), Mumbai vs. Shri Rajenderkumar Miglani, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 2925/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2925/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Dcit, Central Circle-5(4) बिधम/ Rajindrakumar Miglani Room No.1927, 19Th Floor, Uttam House, 69, P „Dmello Vs. Air India Building, Nariman Road, Carnac Bunder, Point, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400009. & Cross Objection No.20/Mum/2021 आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2925/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Rajindrakumar Miglani बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-5(4) Room No.1927, 19Th Floor, Uttam House, 69, P „Dmello Vs. Road, Carnac Bunder, Air India Building, Nariman Mumbai-400009. Point, Mumbai-400021. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabpm7288D (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Sanjeev Kashyp (Dr) Assessee By: Shri K Shivaram & Rahul Hakani सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 30/03/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue As Well As Assessee Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeal As Well As Cross-Objection Against The Order Dated 25.02.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-53, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2010-11. C.O. No.20/Mum2021 A.Y.2010-11

For Appellant: Shri K Shivaram & Rahul HakaniFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Kashyp (DR)
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM AND S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM आयकर