← 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)

Nuance Group India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)1), Bangalore

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

ITA 649/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2022AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Besaganni, JCIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “C”, BANGALORE Before Shri George George K, JM & Ms.Padmavathy S, AM ITA

Sri Panati Vikramdeva Reddy, Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(3)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 529/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

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

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.529/Bang/2021

New Consolidated Construction Co. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dditcpc, Bangalore

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

ITA 1632/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Us:

For Appellant: Hiro RaiFor Respondent: C.T. Mathews
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)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. With the assistance of Ld. Representative, we have perused the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdiction Bombay High Court in the case

M/S. Empower Activity Camps Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 1625/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

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

after due date specified in the Provident Fund Act, but before the due date of filing the return of income as prescribed under section 139(1) of the Act. With the assistance of learned representatives, we have perused the decision of Honourable jurisdictional High Court in the case of Hindustan

M/S. Empower Activity Camps Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 1624/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

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

after due date specified in the Provident Fund Act, but before the due date of filing the return of income as prescribed under section 139(1) of the Act. With the assistance of learned representatives, we have perused the decision of Honourable jurisdictional High Court in the case of Hindustan

M/S. Ciron Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. NFAC, Delhi

ITA 1596/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Om Prakash Kantassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani, D.R
Section 13Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 43B

time period allowed under Provident Fund Act, but deposited prior to the filing of the return of income by the assessee under section 139(1) of the Act. It is the case of the respondent-department that intimation and demand notice was duly communicated to the designated e-mail resource

Chandrahas Mundappa Rai, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CPC, CPC Bangalore

ITA 1595/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Om Prakash Kantassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Haridas Bhatt, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani, D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “C”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI OM PRAKASH

Kamla Landmarc Corporation, Mumbai vs. DCIT (3)(4) Central Circle, Mumbai

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

ITA 1624/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

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

after due date specified in the Provident Fund Act, but before the due date of filing the return of income as prescribed under section 139(1) of the Act. With the assistance of learned representatives, we have perused the decision of Honourable jurisdictional High Court in the case of Hindustan

Sasmos Het Technologies Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 636/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Smt.Susan Mathew, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Priyadarshini 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.636/Bang/2021

ITO Ward- 1(2)(3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Neminath Homes P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1330/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Rahul Chaudhary (Jm)

Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” Bench, Mumbai Before Shri Shamim Yahya (AM) & Shri Rahul Chaudhary (JM) LT.A. No

Roopa Sampath Kumar, Bangalore vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 624/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Mar 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2019-20 Ms. Roopa Sampath Kumar, The Assistant No. 103, Blue Cross Director Of Income Chambers, Tax, Infantry Road, Cpc, Bangalore – 560 Vs. Bangalore. 001. Pan: Ablpk3199A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sandeep Chalapathy, Ca : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. Revenue By Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 28-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal By The Assessee Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 29.10.2021 U/S. 250 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2019-20 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) — Nfac, Delhi, In So Far Is Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Appellant, Is Bad & Erroneous In Law & Against The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - Nfac, Delhi Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Addition Of Employees' Contribution Towards Provident Fund & Employees' State Insurance Of Rs.5,17,229/- Without

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Chalapathy, CA
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 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

Suraj Kiran Fabrics, 8Th, Cloth Market, Pali, 306401, Rajasthan vs. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, Ward 23(3)(6)

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1604/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalesuraj Kiran Fabrics Vs. Jurisdictional Ao 8Th, Cloth Market, Pali, Ward23(3)(6) Rajasthan-306401 Mumbai "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaafs1244A Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri Pavan Kumar Beerla Date Of Hearing 21.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 21 .03.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed An Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- Jodhpur, Passed U/S 154 & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Pavan Kumar Beerla
Section 139Section 143(1)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

towards ESI and PF paid after due date of respective statue but before the filling of Income Tax return due date as per section 139 (1) are allowable expenses and cannot be disallowed under section 36(1)(va). But the Ld. Assessing Officer (CPC) without appreciating the legal position ... 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

Kamla Landmarc Enterprises, Mumbai vs. DCIT-(3)(4), Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 1371/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rashmikant Modi &For Respondent: Shri Neelam Shukla
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (VIRTUAL COURT) “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Kamla Landmarc Enterprises, Mumbai vs. DCIT(3)(4), Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 1370/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rashmikant Modi &For Respondent: Shri Neelam Shukla
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (VIRTUAL COURT) “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Kamla Landmarc Enterprises, Mumbai vs. DCIT(3)(4), Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 1369/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rashmikant Modi &For Respondent: Shri Neelam Shukla
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (VIRTUAL COURT) “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Kamla Landmarc Enterprises, Mumbai vs. DCIT-(3)(4), Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 1368/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rashmikant Modi &For Respondent: Shri Neelam Shukla
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (VIRTUAL COURT) “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Kamla Landmarc Enterprises, Mumbai vs. DCIT-(3)(4), Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 1367/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rashmikant Modi &For Respondent: Shri Neelam Shukla
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (VIRTUAL COURT) “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Kamla Landmarc Enterprises, Mumbai vs. DCIT(3)(4), Central Circle, Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 1366/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rashmikant Modi &For Respondent: Shri Neelam Shukla
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (VIRTUAL COURT) “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Kamla Lamdmarc Enterprises, Mumbai vs. DCIT(3)(4), Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 1365/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Mar 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rashmikant Modi &For Respondent: Shri Neelam Shukla
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (VIRTUAL COURT) “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

M/S Bbr (India) Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 92/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Mar 2022AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Sri.Ramasubramaniam, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Priyadarshini Mishra, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

First Appellate Authority. It was contended that assessee has paid 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