← 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)

Lalita Bharatkumar Jain, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 20(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 6077/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Ms. Ridhisha Jain (virtually appeared)For Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan (SR DR)
Section 10(38)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 272A(1)(d)

submissions and perused the material available on record. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee had filed the original return of income under section 139(1) of the Act. Subsequently, a notice under section 148 was issued for reopening of the assessment. During the reassessment proceedings, the Ld. AO observed

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Noida vs. M/S Bright Buildtech Private Limited, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4106/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year 2021-22] Dcit Vs M/S. Bright Buildtech Pvt.Ltd., Central Circle -1, D-35, Anand Vihar & Vihar, A.R.T.O Complex, Sector-33, Anand Vihar, S.O-East Delhi, Noida-201301. Delhi-110092 Pan-Aaccb7981J Appellant Respondent

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

ITA No.4106/Del/2025 INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “G” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL

DCIT, Central Circle-8, Delhi, Jhandewalan vs. Sanjay Sales Agency, Fatehpuri, Delhi

In the result, Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 963/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 115BSection 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

1 DCIT Vs. Sanjay Sales Agency IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI [DELHI BENCH:“ G” New Delhi] BEFORE SHRI

Shokeen Construction Co., Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-30 Delhi, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5973/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: HeardITAT Delhi27 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 250Section 37

incriminating material for that year and also must specify how the income declared by the assessee in its return of income under Section 139(1) will be affected and to what extent by virtue of the said incriminating material. It is also a settled law that the recording of satisfaction

Shokeen Construction Co., Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-30, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5972/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Delhi27 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 250Section 37

incriminating material for that year and also must specify how the income declared by the assessee in its return of income under Section 139(1) will be affected and to what extent by virtue of the said incriminating material. It is also a settled law that the recording of satisfaction

Shokeen Construction Co., Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-30, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5971/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Delhi27 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 250Section 37

incriminating material for that year and also must specify how the income declared by the assessee in its return of income under Section 139(1) will be affected and to what extent by virtue of the said incriminating material. It is also a settled law that the recording of satisfaction

St Patricks Educational Society, Gumla vs. Income Tax Officer W3(1), Ranchi

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 70/RAN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi26 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George Mathan(Through Hybrid Mode) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.70/Ran/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2018-2019) St Patricks Educational Vs. Ito, Ward-3(1), Ranchi Society, Sisai Road, Gumla, Jharkhand-835207 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aakas 7872 B (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Naveen Dokania, CAFor Respondent: Shri Khubchand T Pandya, Sr
Section 10Section 12ASection 139Section 139(1)Section 148

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC BENCH”, RANCHI BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER (THROUGH HYBRID MODE) आयकर अपील

Mahamedsuhel Abdulkadir Kaduji, Bharuch vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Bharuch

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 566/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.566/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Mahamedsuhel Abdulkadir Kaduji, Vs. Ito, Mota Chakla Kavi, Jambusar, Ward – 1(1), Bharuch – 392170, Gujarat Bharuch "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Amipk5119Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Mukund Rao, Ar Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 04/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/11/2025

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT

Pothina Satyanarayana, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(5), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 568/VIZ/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam26 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.568/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Pothina Satyanarayana, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Visakhapatnam. Ward-2(5), Pan: Ahdpp1312N Visakhapatnam. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By: Sri Gvn Hari, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of 19/11/2025 Hearing: घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 26/11/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, Jm : The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 10/07/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “Ao”) Under Section 147 R.W.S 144 R.W.S 144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “Act”), Dated 12/02/2024 For The Assessment Year 2018-19. The 2 Pothina Satyanarayana Vs. Ito

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151ASection 54F

immovable property: Rs.570.48 lakhs, had escaped assessment and the assessee had not filed his return of income for the subject year under section 139(1) of the Act, reopened his case under section 147 of the Act. Order under section 148A(d) of the Act, dated 04/04/2022 was passed

Ravi Rambabu, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle 2(3), Hyderabad

ITA 651/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 651/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21) Ravi Rambabu, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Hyderabad. Of Income Tax, Circle-2(3), Pan: Abspr3702P Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 17/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 26/11/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Rectification Order Dated 28.03.2025 Passed By The Cit (Appeals) Under Section 154 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “Act"), Dated 28.03.2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Cit(A) Disposing Of The Assessee’S Appeal, Vide His Order Dated 29.01.2025. The Assessee Has Assailed The Impugned Order Passed By The Cit(A)

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 153CSection 154Section 68Section 69Section 69A

balance amount of purchase consideration as his income for the AY 2020-21. 5. Thereafter, the assessee filed his return of income under section 139(1) of the Act on 02.02.2021, declaring his total income at Rs. 4,05,32,630/-, which included the amount of additional income that

Srinivas Chowdary Vallabaneni, Secunderab vs. DCIT., Central Circle -1(4), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1462/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1462/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20) Shri Srinivas Chowdary Vs. Dy.Cit Vallabaneni, Secunderabad Central Circle 1(4) Pan:Aeipv3757R Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Phaneendra Nag, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Ranjan Agrawala, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 17/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 26/11/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

For Appellant: Shri Phaneendra Nag, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Ranjan Agrawala, Sr.DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 271ASection 69B

cases of various persons, including the assessee. Subsequently, the assessee filed return of income for Assessment Year 2019–20 under section 139(1) of the Act on 31.08.2019, admitting a total income of Rs.98,03,260/-, which included Rs.35 lakhs offered by the Page ... lakhs (including the Rs.7 lakhs cash component) during the search proceedings and further included the same in the return of income filed under section 139(1) of the Act. It was contended that there was no concealment and that the assessee had cooperated fully with the search authorities

Sri Lakshmi Road Transport Company, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-6(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1209/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1209/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) M/S Sri Lakshmi Road Vs. Dy. Cit Transport Company Circle 6(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aatfs6596A (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri C. Maheshwar Reddy, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 24/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 26/11/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

For Appellant: Shri C. Maheshwar Reddy, CAFor Respondent: : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)

after the due dates specified under the respective Acts is not allowable, even if such contribution is made before the due date under section 139(1) of the Act. Accordingly, following the binding decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court, we hold that the employees’ contribution deposited

Ponnapula Sulochana, L/R of Late Ponnapula Sanjeeva Parthasarathy, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle -3(2), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of assessee for A

ITA 295/HYD/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153A(1)(a)Section 153DSection 80

prescribed time.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee, who is an individual filed original return of income under Section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) for the assessment year 2016-17 on 28.10.2016, declaring total income ... admitted fact that, the assessee has filed belated return for the assessment year under consideration, which is beyond the due date provided under Section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act. As per Section 139(3) of the Act, if the original return is not furnished on or before

Ponapula Sulochana Lr Late P Sanjeeva Parthasarathy, Hyderabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Tax, Central Circle-3(2), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of assessee for A

ITA 294/HYD/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153A(1)(a)Section 153DSection 80

prescribed time.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee, who is an individual filed original return of income under Section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) for the assessment year 2016-17 on 28.10.2016, declaring total income ... admitted fact that, the assessee has filed belated return for the assessment year under consideration, which is beyond the due date provided under Section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act. As per Section 139(3) of the Act, if the original return is not furnished on or before

Madina Rice Mill Pvt. Ltd., Hooghly vs. A.C.I.T., CC - 4(4), Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2471/KOL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Nov 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, DR
Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 151(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JM AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM ITA

Madina Rice Mill Pvt. Ltd., Hooghly vs. A.C.I.T., CC - 4(4), Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2470/KOL/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Nov 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, DR
Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 151(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JM AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM ITA

Madina Rice Mill Pvt. Ltd., Hooghly vs. A.C.I.T., Central Circle - 4(4), Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2469/KOL/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Nov 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, DR
Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 151(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JM AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM ITA

Madina Rice Mill Pvt. Ltd., Hooghly vs. A.C.I.T., CC - 4(4), Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2468/KOL/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Nov 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, DR
Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 151(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JM AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM ITA

Madina Rice Mill Pvt. Ltd., Hooghly vs. A.C.I.T., CC - 4(4), Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2467/KOL/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Nov 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, DR
Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 151(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JM AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM ITA

Shankaranarayana Constructions Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 2(4), C R Buildings, Queens Road, Bengaluru

In the result, this portion of appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1271/BANG/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Nov 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Respondent: Shri A. Shankar, Sr
Section 132Section 143Section 14ASection 153ASection 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K