“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)

Dinesh Chandra Semwal, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 28(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 21/DEL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Dec 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat

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

section 43B of the Act claiming that same was deposited before the due date of filing of ITR - as per ,provisions of section 139(1) of the Act, hence allowable. Apart from the above, assessee has also placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court

M/S. Vijay Samraj Hotels Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 504/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Dec 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2019-20 M/S. Vijay Samraj Hotels P. The Assistant Ltd., Commissioner Of No. 18, 3Rd Main Road, Income Tax, Gandhinagar, Cpc, Bangalore – 560 009. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aabcv4731B Appellant Respondent Shri S.V. Ravishankar, Assessee By : Advocate & Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, Ca : Shri Raghavendra Rao, Addl. Revenue By Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 01-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-12-2021 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal By The Assessee Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 30.07.2021 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2019-20 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Impugned Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) National Faceless Appeal Centre, Bengaluru Karnataka Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Is Opposed To Law, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case.

For Appellant: Advocate & Ms. Sunaina

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

Appeals) failed to appreciate that the appellant has remitted all the amounts before the due date of filing the return of income under Section 139(1) of the Act and consequently no disallowance can be made under section 36(1)(va) of the Act on the facts and circumstances ... Apex Court and the Jurisdictional High Court in respect of employees contribution to provident fund before due date of filing the return under section 139(1) of the Act is required to be allowed on the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. The appellant craves for leave of this

Abhay Shrivastva, Faridabad vs. DCIT, CPC, Bengalurur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1289/DEL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Dec 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2018-19] Abhay Shrivastva, Vs Dcit, 501, Sears Vth Floor, Sector-86, Cpc, Faridabad, Haryana-121007. Bengaluru. Pan-Bgjps08499B Appellant Respondent Appellant By Sh. Gurjit Singh, Ca Respondent By Sh. Om Prakash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 28.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 28.12.2021

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

deduction to employer even if the employees' contribution is deposited by the due of filing Income Tax Return (ITR) as mentioned under section 139(1). It is in this backdrop that vide Finance Bill 2021, the Government further proposed to amend the law to bring certainty in the issue

Thai Glico Co. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle- 3(1)(1), Intl. Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 7261/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. K. Narasimha Chary

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 144C(3)Section 250Section 274

erred on facts and in law, in concluding that the return filed on 22.11.2013 was not a valid retrun under section 139(1). 3. That Ld. CIT(A)/AO erred on facts and in law, in holding that form 3CEB was filed to extend the deadline for filing of return

Shand Pipe Industry Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (CPC), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 412/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Dec 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George Kassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri H Ananda, Addl.CIT (DR)

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

fund such as provident fund shall be allowed if it is paid on or before the due date as contemplated under Section 139(1) of the IT Act. This provision has nothing to do with the consequences, provided for under the PF Act/PF Scheme/ESI Act, for not depositing the "contribution ... date under the provisions of the PF scheme/Act, he deposited the contribution to the PF/ESI fund before the due date contemplated under Section 139(1) of the Act. 17. Section 6 of the PF Act provides for contributions and matters which may be provided for in Schemes. Paragraph

Devender Yadav, Gurgaon vs. Itd, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1100/DEL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyasstt. Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Garg, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

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

section 43B r.w.s 36(1)(va) of the Act if it is paid before the due date of return of income prescribed under section 139 (1) of the Act. Undisputedly, in the facts of the present appeal the employees’ contribution to PF and ESI were paid before the due date ... return of income prescribed under section 139(1) of the Act. However, assessee’s claim has been disallowed by applying the amended provisions of section 36(1)(va) and 43B of the Act. Though, the amendment to the aforesaid provisions restricting the applicability of section 43B to employee’s contribution

Sudipta Basu, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 52(4), New Delhi

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

ITA 1870/DEL/2020[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2018-19 Sudipta Basu, Vs. Ito, C/O Rohit Tiwari, Ward-52(4), 8024, Ats Green Paradiso, New Delhi. Ch-Iv, Greater Noida, Noida, Uttar Pradesh – 201310. Pan: Aagpb2606K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rohit Tiwari, Advocate Revenue By : Ms Sangeeta Yadav, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.10.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2021 Order

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Tiwari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Sangeeta Yadav, Sr. DR

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : SMC-1 : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year

Oona Singh, Noida vs. DCIT, Circle- 2, Noida

ITA 1100/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: HeardITAT Delhi23 Dec 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Sehgal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Rinku Singh, Sr.DR

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 249Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)

Admittedly, in the instant case the appellant has not filed the return of income either on its own under the provisions of section 139(1) or 139(4) of I.T. Act, 1961 or under the requisitions of the Ld. A.O. under section 148 or 142(1

Mr. Yeruva Prasad, Bengaluru vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 589/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Dec 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Kusuma Yatish, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Besaganni, JCIT-DR

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

disallowing the amount paid beyond the due dates prescribed under ESIC and EPF Act but remitted prior to filing the return under section 139(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by ignoring the binding judgment of Honorable Jurisdiction High Court of Karnataka in the case of CIT vs Sabari ... disallowance under Section 36(1)(va) was applicable only if the said contributions are not remitted within the due date as specified in Section 139(1) as against the due date specified in the law under which remittance was required to be made and that all amounts having been remitted

Mr. Yeruva Prasad, Bengaluru vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 588/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Dec 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Kusuma Yatish, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Besaganni, JCIT-DR

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

Bizviz Technologies Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 587/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore22 Dec 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Sharwan Kumar GuptaFor Respondent: Capt.Pradeep Shoury Arya, Addl.CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “B”, BANGALORE Before Shri George George K, JM & Shri B.R.Baskaran, AM ITA

Volantis Technologies Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 617/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Dec 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2019-20 M/S. Volantis Technologies Private Limited, Vs. Dcit, 940, 2Nd Floor, 16Th Main, Btm 2Nd Stage, Central Processing Centre, Bengaluru – 560 076. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaccv 1855 F Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel For The Department Date Of Hearing : 21.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.12.2021 O R D E R Er N. V. Vasudevanthis Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against Order Dated 02.08.2021 Of Cit(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. The Assessee Is A Private Limited Company. The Assessee Filed Return Of Income For Ay 2019-20 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.36,25,384/-. In An Intimation Dated 16.06.2021 Issued U/S.143(1) Of The Act, The Centralized Processing Centre (Cpc) Added A Sum Of Rs.9,11,370/- Representing Employees’ Share Of Contribution To Esi To The Extent Not Paid On Or Before The Due Date As Mentioned In Sec 36(1)(Va) Of The Income Tax Act 1961. 3. It Was The Case Of The Assessee That Employees’ Share Of Esi Has Been Paid Before The Due Date For Filing Of Return U/S.139(1) Of The Act (This Fact Is Not In Dispute) & Hence Has Been Considered Allowable On The Basis Of Decision Of Supreme Court In Cit Vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd (2009) 319 Itr Page 2 Of 6

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for the Department

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

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 Page 5 of 6 Act, then the assessee would be entitled to claim deduction. Therefore, the issue is covered by the decision

Megneil Tech Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 616/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore21 Dec 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Ms. Sanjana Dave, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for the Department

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 2Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

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

Megneil Tech Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 615/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore21 Dec 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Ms. Sanjana Dave, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for the Department

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 2Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Maheshwari Woods Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 586/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Dec 2021AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Sri.H.Ganpatlal Kawad, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)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

Maheshwari Woods Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 585/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Dec 2021AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Sri.H.Ganpatlal Kawad, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT-DR

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

Kuduva Satishbabu Sheela, Bangalore vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 584/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore21 Dec 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Besaganni, JCIT-DR

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “C”, BANGALORE Before Shri George George K, JM & Shri B.R.Baskaran, AM ITA

Gowrishankar Chemicals Private Limited, Tumkur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 570/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore21 Dec 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Sandeep, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Besaganni, JCIT-DR

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “C”, BANGALORE Before Shri George George K, JM & Shri B.R.Baskaran, AM ITA

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 4(2)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S. N G Balu Reddy HUF, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 651/BANG/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Dec 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George Kassessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Smt. Sheethal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Chetan R, Addl. CIT (DR)

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 147Section 2(47)(v)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K

Srinivas Achar Mohankumar, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(3)(4), Bengaluru

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

ITA 568/BANG/2021[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Dec 2021AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Vice- & Shri Chandra Poojari, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Mahesh Reddy, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sankar Ganesh K, Joint CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 234CSection 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B