← 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)

Mukut Behari Lal Bhargava, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle(2)1, Gurgaon

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

ITA 2012/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalmukut Behari Lal Bhargava, Acit, Lcg 05, 04B Laburnum Complex, Circle-2(1), 1 4Th Floor, Sushant Lok 1, Vs. Gurgaon. Block-A, Sector-28 Haryana-122009. Pan-Adipb9356P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Shri Pradumna Kumar Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 03.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26.11.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A) In Short] In Appeal No. Cit(A), Gurugaon-1/10738/2018-19 Dated 05.02.2025 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act, In Short) For Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring Total Income Of Rs.1,20,41,040/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny & During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Assessing Officer Has Issued Various Notices Which Were Replied By The Assessee. Mukut Behari Lal Bhargava Vs. Acit 3. Thereafter, The Assessment Order Was Passed At A Total Income Of Rs.1,79,36,182/- By Making Disallowance On Account Of Expenses Claimed On Costs Of Improvement Of Capital Asset, Disallowance Of Carry Forward Of Short Term Capital Gains & Long Term Capital Loss & Also Denied The Deduction Claimed U/S 80G Of The Act.

Section 250Section 271Section 80G

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘G’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI

Ahmednagar Zilla Gramsevakanchi Sahakar Patsanstha Maryadit, Ahilyanagar vs. PCIT, Pune-1, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1301/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1301/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2020-21 Ahmednagar Zilla Gramsevakanchi Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, 1, Opp. Sardar Patel Karyala, Behind Vs. Ketkar Hospital, Ahilyanagar-414001 The Pr. Cit, Pune-1 Pan : Aaaaa6582G अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Department By : Date Of Hearing : Date Of Pronouncement : Shri Prasad S Bhandari Shri Amol Khairnar 11-09-2025 25-11-2025 आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 22.03.2025 Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Pune-1 (“Pcit)” Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The “Act”) Pertaining To Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2020-21. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. On The Facts & In The Prevailing Circumstances Of The Case, Respected Pcit Pune -1 Erred Passing The Impugned Revision Order Under Section 263 Without Appreciating The Fact That Interest On The Deposits Made By A Co-Operative Society With The Co-For Operative Bank Is Eligible Deduction Under Section 80P Of The Act. Hence, The Impugned Order Under Section 263 May Please Be Squashed. 2. On The Facts & In The Prevailing Circumstances Of The Case, Respected Pcit Pune 1 Erred Passing The Impugned Revision Order Under Section 263 Without Appreciating The Submission Made By The Assessee Society & The Judgments Of Hon'Ble Jurisdictional Pune

For Appellant: Department byFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “ए” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA

Satgramr. Colliery Employees Cooperative Credit Society Limited, Asansol vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Asansol

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1920/KOL/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Nov 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.1920/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Satgram R Collery Employees Cooperative Credit Society Ltd……....Appellant Satgram Project, P.O Debichand Nagar, Block-Jamuria-1, Asansol, W.B. 713332. [Pan: Aajas8427K] Vs. Acit, Circle-1, Asansol……..……………....…..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Abhijit Banerjee, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S. B. Chakraborty, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 24, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 25, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 03.02.2025 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”). 2. At The Time Of Hearing Of The Matter, The Learned Representative Submitted That There Was A Delay Of 115 Days In Filing The Appeal. In This Connection, The Assessee Filed An Affidavit Explaining The Reasons For The Delay. After Considering The Submissions Of The Assessee & Examining The Contents Of The Affidavit, We Are Satisfied That The Reasons For The Delay Are Bona Fide & Deserve To Be Condoned.

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 80P

amounting to ₹40,07,277 on the ground that the assessee had not filed the return within the time prescribed under section 139(1) of the Act. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A), who sustained the disallowance. 5. The assessee is now in further appeal