“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 Google India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Centralized Processing Centre, Bangalore

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

ITA 81/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Mar 2022AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Sri.Aliasgar Rampurwala, 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

Employees' Provident Fund ("PF"), although the said amount was paid before the due date of filing the return of income under Section 139(1) of the Act for AY 2017-18 and therefore, deduction was allowable under Section 36(i)(va) read with Section 43B of the Act as applicable

Viskan Logistics Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 639/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2022AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Sri.V.Sridhar, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sankar Ganesh D, JCIT-DR

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

Viskan Logistics Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 638/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Sri.V.Sridhar, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sankar Ganesh D, JCIT-DR

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

Viskan Logistics Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 637/BANG/2021[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2022AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Sri.V.Sridhar, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sankar Ganesh D, JCIT-DR

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

M/S. Transworld Ict Solutions (P) Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 1310/BANG/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A Nos.1309 & 1310/Bang/2010 Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2007-08 M/S. Transworld Ict Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Innovator, No.15, Hoody, Whitefield Road, Circle – 2(1), Mahadevapura Post, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 048. Pan : Aabct 3824 F Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri. G. S. Prashanth, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Dilip, Advocate, Standing Counsel For Department Date Of Hearing : 17.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. G. S. Prashanth, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Dilip, Advocate, Standing Counsel for Department

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 92Section 92(1)Section 92B(1)

raised by the assessee are without any merit because the assessee did not file a transfer pricing analysis alongwith the returns filed under section 139(1) of the Act and therefore the AO was well within his powers to examine the issue without regard to ALP in the proceedings under ... assessee are without any merit because the assessee did not file a transfer pricing analysis along with the returns filed under section 139(1) of the Act and therefore the AO was well within his powers to examine the issue without regard to ALP in the proceedings under section 153A

M/S. Transworld Ict Solutions (P) Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 1309/BANG/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2022AY 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri. G. S. Prashanth, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Dilip, Advocate, Standing Counsel for Department

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 92Section 92(1)Section 92B(1)

Mamania Family Trust, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 41, Mumbai

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

ITA 308/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri A. M. Alankamony, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 308/Mum/2014 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2006-07)

For Appellant: None byFor Respondent: Shri C. T. Mathews, Ld. DR by

Section 115WSection 139(1)Section 143(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI A. M. ALANKAMONY, AM & Ms. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM आयकरअपीलसं

Karle Infrastructure Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 39/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Smt.Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Narayana K.R., Addl.CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)

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

M/S Lenovo India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 2833/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CA

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92C

amount of INR 8,22,159 was actually paid by the Appellant prior to the due date of filing the return under section 139(1) of the Act and that the balance amount was suo-moto disallowed as per the provisions of section 43B(f) of the Act. 6. Additions ... amount of IN 8,22,159, was actually paid by the Appellant before the due date for furnishing return of income under section 139(1) of the Act and therefore, to that extent, is not an unascertained liability. 7. Other grounds 7.1 The Honorable DRP and the learned AO have

Gm Overseas, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-48(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 1891/DEL/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Hemant Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 131ASection 133ASection 143(3)Section 147

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : C : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI N.K

Ram Kumar Tomar, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 34(1), New Delhi

In the result appeal filed by the Assesses is allowed

ITA 1730/DEL/2020[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shrianil Chaturvedi & Shri N. K. Choudhry(Through Video Conferencing) Ram Kumar Tomar, Vs. Ito, C-40, Shakti Nagar Extension, Ward-34(1), New Delhi D New Delhi Pan: Aadpt6457D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: ShriAmitGoel, Ld. CAFor Respondent: ShriVipulKashyap

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

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRIANIL CHATURVEDI,ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI N. K. CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 2(1), Mysuru vs. Shri. H Omkarappa (HUF), Shivamogga

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2192/BANG/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Mar 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year :2008-09 The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Shri. H. Omkarappa, (Huf), Ward - 1, #3, A Block, Apmc Yard, Shivamogga Sagar Road, Shivamogga. Pan : Aabhh 1124 B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Shri. S. Ramasubramanyam, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Sankar Ganesh K, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 10.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.03.2022 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. Shri. S. Ramasubramanyam, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 40Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI B. R. BASKARAN

M/S. Zion Hospitals and Research Centre Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(2), Bengaluru

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

ITA 448/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Mar 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2019-20 M/S. Zion Hospitals & Research Centre Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy No. 9, “Le Villa”, Commissioner Of Kirti Layout, Income Tax, Kammanahalli Main Road, Circle – 7 [1][2], Bangalore – 560 084. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaacz4369G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. Revenue By Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 17-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 17-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal By The Assessee Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 31.08.2021 U/S. 250 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2019-20 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Orders Of The Authorities Below In So Far As They Are Against The Appellant Are Opposed To Law. Equity, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax [Appeals] / National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac For Short] Is Not Justified In Upholding The Determination Of Total Loss Of Appellant In The Intimation U/S. 143[1] Of The Act, At Rs. 63,89,502/-As Against The Returned Loss Of Rs.

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 234BSection 250Section 36Section 43B

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

S N Balasubramaniya, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 60/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Mar 2022AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Sri.Sandeep C, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Kannan Narayanan., 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

Technocon Builders, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(2)(1) Represented by Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 59/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2019-20 M/S. Technocon Builders, The Deputy # 337, Sf 8, Commissioner Of Karuna Complex, Income Tax, Sampige Road, Circle - 2 (2)(1), Malleshwaram, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 003. Pan: Aaift3196L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Rajagopal, Ca : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. Revenue By Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 16-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal By The Assessee Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 22.11.2021 U/S. 250 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2019-20 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Impugned Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 To The Extent Which Is Against The Appellant Is Opposed To Law, Without Jurisdiction, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri Rajagopal, CA

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 30Section 32Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

amounting to Rs.4,35,400/-paid by the Appellant, though, the same was remitted before the due date of filing of return under section 139(1) of the Act. 4. The learned Assessing Officer has erred, in law and in facts, by not considering the provisions of Section

Deepak Vasudev Rao, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 58/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore16 Mar 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri R.E. Balasubramanyam, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R

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

ITA No.57 & 58/Bang/2022 Shri Deepak Vasudev Rao, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V

Deepak Vasudev Rao, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 57/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore16 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri R.E. Balasubramanyam, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R

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

ITA No.57 & 58/Bang/2022 Shri Deepak Vasudev Rao, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V

Karle Infrastructure Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 40/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Mar 2022AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Smt.Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Narayana K.R., Addl.CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Mrs. Saira Banu, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(2)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed on additional grounds raised

ITA 691/BANG/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Mar 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2007-08 Mrs. Saira Banu, The Deputy # N-42, 9Th “B” Main, Commissioner Of Lic Quarters, Income Tax, Jeevan Bhima Nagar, Circle – 7 [2], Bangalore – 560 075. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aebpb3345J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. Revenue By Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 16-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Has Been Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 31.08.2020 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-9, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2007-08 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Orders Of The Authorities Below In So Far As They Are Against The Appellant, Are Opposed To Law, Equity, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Order Of Assessment Is Bad In Law In So Far As The Issues For Which The A.O. Initiated & Completed The Assessment Proceedings On The Basis Of The Details & Information Collected By Him Were Not Put To The Appellant & Thus, The Order Of Assessment Passed Is In Gross Violation Of The Principles Of Natural Justice & Thus, The Same Deserves To Be Cancelled.

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate

Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234Section 251

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

Patel & Associates, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT -CC-7(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 832/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Patel & Associates, Dcit Cc-7(3), Office No. 1, 2Nd Floor, Patel Vs. Aayakarbhavan, Bhuvan, 29 Vijay Wad, Dr Mumbai-400020. Nagindas N Shah Lane Chirasazar, Mumbai-400 002. Pan No. Aanfm 8145 P Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. AparnaSivakumar, AR

Section 139(9)Section 143(3)

return of income. Sub-section (5) of section 139, permits a person, who has filed the return of income as required under section 139(1) or in pursuance of notice under sub-section (1) of section 142, to file a revised return, if the assessee discovers any omission or wrong