← 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. Brush Tech India, Mysuru vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 2/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Apr 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year:2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Sachin H.S., A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing counsel for dept
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

ITA No.2/Bang/2022 M/s. Brush Tech India, Mysuru IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” “B’’BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI B

Shantha Rao Gujju, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 158/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Apr 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Dept
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

ITA Nos.157 & 158/Bang/2022 Shantha Rao Gujju, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” “B’’BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI B.R

Shantha Rao Gujju, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 157/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Dept
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

ITA Nos.157 & 158/Bang/2022 Shantha Rao Gujju, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” “B’’BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI B.R

Cheruvathur Veetil Damodaran, Mysuru vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 678/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Apr 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri B. Parthasarathy, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing counsel for dept
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

ITA No.678/Bang/2021 CheruvathurVeetil Damodaran, Mysuru IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” “B’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI B. R. BASKARAN

Sulthan Mohammed Ismail, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 673/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Apr 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Chalapathy, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing counsel for dept
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

ITA Nos.672 & 673/Bang/2021 Sulthan Mohammed Ismail, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” “B’’BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI B

Sulthan Mohammed Ismail, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 672/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Chalapathy, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing counsel for dept
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

ITA Nos.672 & 673/Bang/2021 Sulthan Mohammed Ismail, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” “B’’BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI B

Mangalore Security Services Private Limited, Mangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 & Tps, Udupi

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

ITA 61/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Anil Dsouza, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing counsel for dept
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

ITA No.61/Bang/2022 Mangalore Security Services Pvt. Ltd., Mangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” “A’’BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI

M/S. Lakhotia Belting Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income-Tax, Ward, 4(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 100/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Apr 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Kedar Paranjape, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing counsel for dept
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

ITA No.100/Bang/2022 Lakhotia Belting Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” “A’’BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI B

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle - 2(3), Bangaluru vs. Shri T.H Suresh Babu, Bellary

In the result, the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1890/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), BengaluruFor Respondent: Shri Sivaprasad Reddy, ITP
Section 133A(5)Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 153Section 153ASection 153A(1)Section 153CSection 153C(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL

M/S. Elite India Constructions Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income-Tax Officer-Ward-2(1)(4), Bangalore

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

ITA 104/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Apr 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Vp & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.V.Sudhindranath, ARFor 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 Shri N.V.Vasudevan, VP & Ms.Padmavathy S, AM ITA No.104/Bang/2022 : Asst.Year

Ants Ceramics P Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr.CIT-1, Thane

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

ITA 970/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Apr 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 970/Mum/2021 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2017-18) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 971/Mum/2021 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2016-17) बनधम/ Ants Ceramics Pvt. Ltd. Pcit, Thane-1 B Wing, Ashar It Park, 6Th 1 Jivdani Ind. Estate No.1, Vs. Off. Western Express Floor, Road No.16Z, Highway, Dhumal Nagar, Wagle Industrial Estate, Vasai Road (E), 401208. Thane (W), Thane, Maharashtra-400604. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aafca3194D (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. Assessee By: Shri Anil Sathe Revenue By: Ms. Shailja Rai (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 03/01/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 01/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Different Order Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Thane-1 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Pcit”] Relevant To The A.Ys.2016-17 & 2017-18 In Which The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Pcit”] Has Invoked The Provisions U/S 263 Of The I.T. Act, 1961. Ita. No. 971/Mum/2021 2. The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 22.03.2021 Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Thane- Relevant To The A.Y.2016-17 In Which The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Has Invoked The Revisional Power U/S 263 Of The I.T. Act, 1961. 2

For Appellant: Shri Anil SatheFor Respondent: Ms. Shailja Rai (DR)
Section 139(1)Section 263Section 35

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

Borchers India Chemicals P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. The ITO-Ward-25(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1354/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Us: “1. (A) The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Jurisdiction Exercised By Centralized Processing Centre Under Section 143(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ('The Act') Involving Allowability Of Claim On Account Of Delayed Payment Of Employees' Contribution To Provident Fund (Under The Employees Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952) Under Section 36(L)(Va) Of The Act.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: C.T. Mathews
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)Section 234BSection 234CSection 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43b

ITA No.1354/Mum/2021 A.Y.2018-19 1 Borchers India chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The ITO, Ward 25(2)(1) IN THE INCOME TAX

Bengaluru International Group of Service, Bengaluru vs. The Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 648/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Bengaluru International Group Of Service, The Assistant Site No. 4 & 12, Sy.No. 96/1, Director Of Income Near South Ridge Apartment, Tax, Jakkur, Cpc, Bangalore – 560 064. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aalfb2496G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Prabhakar .K.R, Ca : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. Revenue By Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 31-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal By The Assessee Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 01.10.2021 U/S. 250 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2018-19 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Herein After Called Cit(A), Is Opposed To Law, Evidences, Probabilities & Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Learned Cit(Appeals) Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Amounting To Rs.79,99,158/- Made By The Assistant Director Of Income Tax, Cpc, Bengaluru, (Ao For Short) In Respect Of The Claim Towards Employees'

For Appellant: Shri Prabhakar .K.R, CA
Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL

Ashwin Shetty, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 600/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2018-19 Shri Ashwin Shetty, The Assistant No. 63/A, 13Th Cross, Commissioner Of J.P. Nagar 3Rd Phase, Income Tax, Bangalore – 560 078. Cpc, Pan: Anaps7985B Vs. Bangalore. Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri S.N. Shyanbhag, Advocate : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. Revenue By Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 17-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal By The Assessee Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 09.09.2021 U/S. 250 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2018-19 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Learned Commissioner Of Appeals Has Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.16,11,013/-Being Belated Payment Of Employees Contribution Of Esi & Pf Paid Before Due Date For Filing The Return Of Income & An Amount Of Rs.18,362/- Being Club Expenses Incurred By The Employees Made By The A.O. Cpc In 143(1) Proceedings. 2. The Cit(A) Erred In Holding That The Amendment By Way Explanation 2 To Section 36(1) (Va) & Explanation 5 To The Section 43B Made In The Finance Act 2021 Has Retrospective Effect As Such The Decisions Relied On By The Appellant Are Not Applicable.

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Shyanbhag, Advocate
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL

Rashmi Ameya Developers Housing & Estate Realtors P. Ltd., Palghar vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3, Thane

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1990/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 & Assessment Year: 2015-16 Rashmi Ameya Developers Acit, Central Circle-3, 6Th Floor, Ashar It Park, Road No. Housing & Estate Realtors Pvt. Ltd., Vs. D Ii, 01 02, Akanksha Commercial 16Z, Wagale Industrial Estate, Complex, Opp. Sajavat Complex, Thane-400 604. Achole Road, Nallasopara, Dist. Palghar-401 203. Pan No. Aaecr 8508 H Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Subhodh Ratnaparkhi, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Prabhat Kumar Gupta, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 153C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND MS. KAVITHA

ITO 10 (1)(3), Mumbai vs. Kailashnath Mercantile Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 6451/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Mar 2022AY 2009-10
For Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh Anand (DR)
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 147Section 148Section 68

disposed together. 4. The brief facts relevant to the issue under consideration are that Assessee filed original return of income under Section 139(1) of the Act on 26.09.2009 declaring „Nil‟ income after claiming loss of INR 13,321/- which was processed under section 143(1

Smt. P. Kavitha, Legal Representative of Late Sri. P. Gopinatha Reddy, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 666/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Joseph Varghese, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “B”, BANGALORE Before Shri Chandra Poojari, AM & Smt.Beena Pillai, JM ITA No.665/Bang/2021

Smt. P. Kavitha, Legal Representative of Late Sri. P. Gopinatha Reddy, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 665/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Joseph Varghese, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “B”, BANGALORE Before Shri Chandra Poojari, AM & Smt.Beena Pillai, JM ITA No.665/Bang/2021

P. Gopinatha Reddy (HUF), Through P. Vishwak Sena Reddy (Karta), Bengaluru vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 661/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Joseph Varghese, AdvocateFor 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 Shri Chandra Poojari, AM & Smt.Beena Pillai, JM ITA No.661/Bang/2021

Ikon Labels Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 658/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Raj Kamal Ganeriwala, 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 Shri Chandra Poojari, AM & Smt.Beena Pillai, JM ITA No.658/Bang/2021