← 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. Skava Electric Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 565/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Dec 2021AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Sri.Kusuma Yathish, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sankar Ganesh K, Joint CIT-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 2 M/s.Skava Electric Private Limited. Honorable Jurisdiction High Court of Karnataka ... 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

Maf Clothing Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 563/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.R.Venkata Raman, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Srinath Sadanala, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “B”, BANGALORE Before Shri B.R.Baskaran, AM & Smt.Beena Pillai, JM ITA No.563/Bang/2021 : Asst.Year

San Disk India Device Design Centre Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. ITO, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 543/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sunil Kumar Singh, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 154Section 92C

despite the fact that the Appellant had filed its return of income within the due date prescribed under section 139(1) of the Act. 15. Non-grant of refund and levy of interest under section 234D of the Act The AO has erred in considering that a refund ... regard. the Assessee submits that although the due date to file the return of income for AY 2010-11 was 30.09.2010 as per Section 139 (1) of the Act, the CBDT issued a Circular dated 27.09.2010 bearing reference F.No. 225/72/2010-1TA.II under Section 119 of the Act extending the due date

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Sandisk India Device Design Centre Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 341/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sunil Kumar Singh, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 154Section 92C

despite the fact that the Appellant had filed its return of income within the due date prescribed under section 139(1) of the Act. 15. Non-grant of refund and levy of interest under section 234D of the Act The AO has erred in considering that a refund ... regard. the Assessee submits that although the due date to file the return of income for AY 2010-11 was 30.09.2010 as per Section 139 (1) of the Act, the CBDT issued a Circular dated 27.09.2010 bearing reference F.No. 225/72/2010-1TA.II under Section 119 of the Act extending the due date

M/S. Fashion Matrix Clothing, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 6(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 550/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Dec 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2018-19

For Respondent: Shri Mahesh Kumar L
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

learned CIT (A). Additional Ground 13. The learned Assessing officer is not justified in disallowing Employer contribution made within due date under section 139(1), as per 1st proviso to section 43B, thereby the disallowance of Rs. 30,63,698/- ought to be deleted. 14. The learned Assessing officer ... Assessing officer failed to consider the decision of Honourable supreme court that the amount paid by way of contribution within due date of section 139(1) ought to have been allowed. 16. Principle of Natural Justice violated: The learned CIT(A) passed an order without providing sufficient opportunity, more specifically

Vidhi Clothing Company, Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (CPC), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assesseeis allowed

ITA 369/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Dec 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Shri Chanda Poojariassessment Year :2018-19 M/S. Vidhi Clothing Company, Vs. Dcit, No.4, 2Nd Cross, Mysore Road, Central Processing Centre, Opp. Toll Gate, Vinayakanagar, Bengaluru. Bangalore – 560 026. Pan : Aahfv 9512 F Assessee By : Smt. Suman Lunkar, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Sankar Ganesh K, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 14.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.12.2021 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
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 Act, then the assessee would be entitled to claim deduction. Therefore, the issue is covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka

M/S Green Orchard Farm House, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

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

ITA 918/BANG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Green Orchard Farm Houses, The Deputy #10/1, Lakshminarayana Commissioner Of Complex, Income Tax, Palace Road, Central Circle – 2[2], Bangalore – 560 052. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aagfg4507Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri R. Ramakrishnan, Ca : Shri Muzaffar Hussain, Cit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 07-10-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 14-12-2021 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Has Been Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 15.03.2016 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-11 For Assessment Year 201213. 2. At The Outset, Ld.Ar Raised Following Legal Issue Challenging The Validity Of The Assessment Order Passed As A Notice U/S. 143(2) Was Issued Beyond A Period Of Six Months. The Legal Issue Is Raised By An Application Dated 29.03.2018 Seeking Admission Of Additional Grounds As Under:

For Appellant: Shri R. Ramakrishnan, CA
Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 292B

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

Mavinahalli Shivananjappa Vijay Kumar, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 597/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore13 Dec 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Shri Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Hegde, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Addl.CIT (DR)
Section 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

Stirred Creative Advertising Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 594/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore13 Dec 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Smt. Susan Mathew, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT (DR)
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 6

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

Shardha Nand Sharma, Faridabad vs. Itd, CPC, Bengaluru

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1140/DEL/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Dec 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad[Assessment Year : 2018-19) & [Assessment Year : 2019-20)

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

1 ITA No. 1139 & 1140/Del/2021 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “SMC” BENCH: NEW DELHI (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) BEFORE

Shardha Nand Sharma, Faridabad vs. Itd, CPC, Bengaluru

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1139/DEL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Dec 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad[Assessment Year : 2018-19) & [Assessment Year : 2019-20)

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

1 ITA No. 1139 & 1140/Del/2021 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “SMC” BENCH: NEW DELHI (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) BEFORE

Digicall Teleservices Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 6267/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Dec 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2006-07] Digicall Teleservices Pvt. Ltd. Vs Acit (Formerly Page Point Services India Central Circle-25 Pvt. Ltd.) D-7, Dhawandeep New Delhi Apartment, 6, Jantar Mantar Road, New Delhi Pan-Aabcp794Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By None Respondent By Shri Umesh Takyar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 03.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 09.12.2021

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 2Section 2(24)Section 36Section 36(1)(Va)

Provident Fund Act and failed to consider that the appellant company deposited the same before the due date for filing his return under Section 139 (1) of the Act as mentioned in the assessment order. (D) That having regard to the facts and the circumstances of the case ... failed to consider that the appellant company deposit same before the due date for filing his return . Section 139 (1) of the Act as mentioned in the assessment order. (E.) It is submitted that if the payment of PF and ESI has been made on or before due date

Aruna Devi, Muzaffarnagar vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Muzaffarnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5412/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjeev Sapra, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Padampani Bora, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 154Section 43B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’ NEW DLEHI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, PRESIDENT AND SHRI K. NARASIMHA

Maxx Solutions, Gurgaon vs. CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 1032/DEL/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2019-20 Maxx Solutions, Vs. Cpc, 958-960, Tower Bi, Bengaluru. 9Th Floor, Sapaze It Park, Sohna Road, Sector-49, Gurgaon. Pan: Aavfm7455N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ashish Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.11.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 22Nd July, 2021 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Company & Filed Its Return Of Income On 26Th October, 2019 Declaring Total Income At Rs.18,50,524/-. The Return Was Processed By The Cpc, Bangalore U/S 143(1) Of The Act On 06.03.2020 Wherein Disallowance Of Rs.5,78,203/- Was Made As Per Provisions Of Section 36(1)(Va) On Account Of Delayed Payment Of Employees’ Contribution To Pf & Esi. In Appeal, The Ld.Cit(A), Relying On Various Decisions, Upheld The Action Of The Ao. 3. Aggrieved With Such Order Of The Cit(A), The Assessee Is In Appeal Before The Tribunal By Raising The Following Grounds:- “ The Ld. Cit(A) Was Wrong In Confirming Addition Of Rs.5,78,203/- U/S 36(1)(Va) Of The It Act, 1961 Without Any Base.”

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(v)Section 36(1)(va)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : SMC-1 : NEW DELHI (Through Virtual Hearing) BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT

Northern India Trading Co, New Delhi vs. Dcitcpc, Bengaluru

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

ITA 1956/DEL/2020[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2018-19 Northern India Trading Co., Vs. Dcit, C/O Ssar & Associates, Ca, Cpc, 4852/24, Ff Ansari Road, Bengaluru. Near Sanjivan Hospital, Daryaganj, New Delhi. Pan: Aahfn1944R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sachin Jain, Ca Revenue By : Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.11.2021 Order

For Appellant: Shri Sachin Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 36(1)(v)Section 36(1)(va)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : SMC-1 : NEW DELHI (Through Virtual Hearing) BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT

Econ, Ghaziabad vs. ADIT, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, these appeals filed by the two assessees are allowed

ITA 1086/DEL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, SR DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 2(24)Section 36Section 43Section 43B

employee & employer and thus being so, if the contribution is made on or before the due date of furnishing return of income under Section 139(1) the employer is entitled to deduction. 6. The .CIT(A) failed to appreciate that if on any issue there is bifurcation of Opinion between

ACIT, Central Circle-28, New Delhi vs. Charchit Agarwal, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7618/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Nov 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Acit Vs. Charchit Agarwal Central Circle – 28 1245, Kucha Mahajani, New Delhi Chandni Chowk New Delhi - 110006 Pan No. Adspa 0329 D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rajiv Saxena, Advocate Revenue By Shri Kumar Pranav, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 22.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.11.2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 14.09.2018 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 29, New Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Relevant Facts As Culled From The Material On Records Are As Under :

Section 133ASection 139Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. AMIT

Alok Garg, Ghaziabad vs. DCIT, Circle- 1, Ghaziabad

ITA 7528/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Nov 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri R.K. Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Kirti Sankartyan, Senior DR
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 3

that you:- • Have without reasonable cause failed to furnish merturn of income which you were required to furnish by a notice given under section 139(1) or by a notice given u/s 139(2)/148/142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated……… or have without reasonable cause failed ... furnish within the time allowed and in the manner required by the said section 139(1) or by such notice. • Have without reasonable cause failed to comply with a notice under section 142(1)/143(2) of the Income tax Act, 1961 No………… dated…………… • Have concealed the particulars of your

ACIT, CC- 3, New Delhi vs. Jotindra Steel & Tubes Ltd., Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4400/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Nov 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 4400/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Acit, Vs Jotindra Steel & Tubes Ltd., Central Circle-3, 14/3, Mathura Road, Meerut Village- Mewla Maharajpur, Faridaba-121003 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacj1872C Assessee By : Sh. Ved Jain, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Shivani Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 16.09.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.11.2021

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Shivani Singh, CIT DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 36(1)(va)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Amit Shukla, Judicial Member Dr. B. R

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sh. Subash Dabas, New Delhi

In the result, the Cross Objection filed by the

ITA 6701/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Section 127Section 132Section 132(1)Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 194CSection 2(22)(e)Section 68Section 69

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘G’: NEW DELHI (Through Video Conferencing) BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER