“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)

Arvind Kumar Aggarwal, Ambala City vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Chandigarh, Central Circle Chandigarh

ITA 344/CHANDI/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.343/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.344/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.345/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 4. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.445/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 5. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.346/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Arvind Kumar Aggarwal Dcit (Central-2) बनाम/ C/O Sh. Rajiv Goel & Associates Cr Building, Sector 17 179, Bank Road Chandigarh – 160017 Vs. Ambala Cantt. (Haryana) -133001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Abfpa-8832-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Rajiv Goel & Sh. Dhruv Goel (Ca) – Ld. Ars ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Meenkashi Vohra (Cit) - Ld. Dr (Virtual) सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10-12-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09-03-2026

For Appellant: Sh. Rajiv Goel & Sh. Dhruv Goel (CA) – Ld. ARsFor Respondent: Smt. Meenkashi Vohra (CIT) - Ld. DR (Virtual)

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153A(1)(b)Section 153DSection 69

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, CHANDIGARH HYBRID HEARING BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JM AND

Arvind Kumar Aggarwal, Ambala City vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2 Chandigarh, DCIT Central Circle Chandigarh

ITA 343/CHANDI/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. Rajiv Goel & Sh. Dhruv Goel (CA) – Ld. ARsFor Respondent: Smt. Meenkashi Vohra (CIT) - Ld. DR (Virtual)

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153A(1)(b)Section 153DSection 69

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, CHANDIGARH HYBRID HEARING BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JM AND

Rohit Aggarwal, Ambala City vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Chadigarh, Central Circle Chandigarh

The appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 324/CHANDI/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rajiv Goel & Sh. Dhruv Goel (CA) – Ld. ARsFor Respondent: Smt. Meenkashi Vohra (CIT) - Ld. DR (Virtual)

Section 131Section 153A(1)(b)

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, CHANDIGARH HYBRID HEARING BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JM AND

Achala Punja, Chennai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Non Corporate Circle 3(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2630/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 194Section 271(1)(c)Section 54

sTaeRX Hee sea, ‘Ay ear, teas IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI att uct &t cht, aren

Surendra Himmatlal Shah, Mumbai vs. Dy. CIT, 8(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 8536/MUM/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2024-25

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gopal Sharma &For Respondent: Shri Bhagirath Ramawat

Section 115Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 143(1)

Income Tax Rules, 1962, the prescribed Form 3CFA must be filed on or before the due date of filing return of income under Section 139(1) of the Act. It is admitted position that the Assessee did not file Form 3CFA before the due date of filing return of income

Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Narsingpur vs. Asst. Commissioner of Incometax, Circle 2(1), Jabalpur

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 149/JAB/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur06 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 154Section 40Section 43B

I.T.A. Nos 148 & 149/JAB/2024 Assessment Year:2014-15 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JABALPUR BENCH “SMC”, JABALPUR BEFORE

Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Narsingpur vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1), Jabalpur

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 148/JAB/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur06 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 154Section 40Section 43B

I.T.A. Nos 148 & 149/JAB/2024 Assessment Year:2014-15 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JABALPUR BENCH “SMC”, JABALPUR BEFORE

Kamlesh Sharma, Raipur vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Raipur

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as above

ITA 70/RPR/2026[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur06 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 70/Rpr/2026 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2020-21) Kamlesh Sharma, House No.109, Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Harihant Nagar, Sarona, Tax, Circle-1(1), Central Revenue Ring Road No.1, Raipur-492001, Cg Building, Civil Lines, Raipur-492001 Pan: Bppps4514C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : None (Adjournment Petition Filed) राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 06/03/2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am: This Appeal For Assessment Year (‘Ay’) 2020-21 Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 18.12.2025 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), [‘Cit(A)’], National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’), Delhi Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’).

For Appellant: None (Adjournment Petition filed)For Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 10Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151ASection 249(3)Section 250Section 57Section 69

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, रायपुर "ायपीठ, रायपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR "ी पाथ" सारथी चौधरी, "ाियक सद

Amith Vishnav Gudimella, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-12(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1705/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad06 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita.No.1705/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2020-2021 Amith Vishnav The Income Tax Officer, Gudimella, Hyderabad. Ward-12(1), Pin – 500 008. Telangana. Vs. Hyderabad. Pan Aghpv2565J Telangana. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By Sri T Chaitanya Kumar, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By : Ms Reema Yadav, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 03.03.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 06.03.2026 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao:

For Respondent: MS Reema Yadav, Sr. AR

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 90Section 91

shall be allowed on furnishing of Form 67 on or before the due date of filing the return of income as prescribed under Section 139(1) of the Act. The question thus arises as to whether where a substantial compliance has been made and Form 67 has been eventually filed ... albeit after the due date of filing of return of income under Section 139(1) of the Act, the denial of FTC would be justified. In this regard, the assessee contends that Rule 128 provides machinery for seeking relief and compliance thereof are the procedural formality which has been duly

Suresh Kumar Poddar, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 63(4), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1542/KOL/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Mar 2026AY 2011-2012

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)

Section 111ASection 132Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 250Section 250o

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH,KOLKATA SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A

The Tamil Nadu Dr Ambedkar Law University, Chennia vs. Income- Tax Officer (Exemptions) Ward 1, Chennai

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

ITA 833/CHNY/2026[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Mar 2026AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:833/Chny/2026 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 The Tamil Nadu Dr. The Income Tax Officer Ambedkar Law University, Vs. (Exemptions), No.5, Poompozhil Campus, Ward 1, Dr. Dgs Dinakaran Salai, Chennai. Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai – 600 028. Pan: Aadat 3528N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Ann Mary Baby, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.03.2026 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06.03.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R Per George George K: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Addl/Jcit(A)-2, Pune Order Dated 27.01.2026 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2019-20 :- 2 -:

For Appellant: Shri Vikram VijayaraghavanFor Respondent: Ms. Ann Mary Baby, CIT

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 154(3)Section 250

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी जॉज" जॉज

Rotary Club of Bombay Queens Necklace Charitable Trust, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 2(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 8306/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Bijayananda Prusethrotary Club Of Bombay Vs Ito (Exem.) Ward 2(2), Mumbai Queens Necklace Charitable Aayakar Bhawan, M.K. Road Trust Mumbai-400020 B 41/45, Paragon Centre, Pandurang Budhkar Marg, Worli, Mumbai-400013 Pan: Aaatr4200K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Kishor PatelFor Respondent: Shri Bhagirath Ramawat (SR DR)

Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 12A(1)(b)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250

public trust registered under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950. During the impugned assessment year, the assessee filed its return of income under section 139(1) of the Act. In terms of the statutory requirements, the assessee was also required to furnish the audit report in Form No. 10B within ... vide acknowledgment no. 533536960291123 which is delayed by 29 days. 5. The extended due date for e-filing of Return of Income under section 139(1) of the Act for the Assessment Year 2023-24 was 30.11.2023 and the Appellant has e-filed the Retum of Income

Senthilkumar Thangaraj, Mumbai vs. ITO-Ward 42(3)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 8221/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri. Himanshu Gandhi

Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 250

dismissed.” 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The assessee filed the return of income under section 139(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the assessment was reopened by the Ld. AO by issuing notice under section 148 of the Act on the ground

Income Tax Officer, Ramgarh vs. Babita Prasad, Bokaro Steel City

In the result, this appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 279/RAN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi05 Mar 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.O., Babita Prasad, Ward 2(3), Qtr No. 1/167 Sector 2B, Bokaro Steel Vs. Ramgarh. City, Bokaro-827001, (Jharkhand) Pan No. Aodpp 6894 E Appellant/ Revenue Respondent/ Assessee

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 194ASection 69A

concerned bank and without proper verification. The ld. Sr.DR also submitted that the assessee has not filed her return of income either under Section 139(1) or under Section 148 of the Act. The ld. Sr.DR prayed that the order of the Assessing Officer may be upheld. 6. The assessee

Chandrani Commotrade Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 13(1), Kolkata

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 665/KOL/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Mar 2026AY 2012-2013

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 151Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, KOLKATA SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A

Bhawarlal S Jain, Vijayapura vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 & Tps, Bijapur

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

ITA 2138/BANG/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Sudheendra BR, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Azhar Zain VP, CIT(DR)

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 148Section 250Section 69A

into the business through proprietary concern in the name of Jain Traders. The assessee for the year under consideration filed return under section 139(1) of the Act. As per the original return, the assessee declared total turnover of Rs. 7,57,34,465/-, gross profit

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Mangalore vs. Raj Diamonds, Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed &

ITA 1361/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Sri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Subramanian, D.R

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144(3)Section 148Section 153CSection 250

ITANo.1361/Bang/2025 & CO 20/Bang/2025 M/s. Raj Diamonds, Mumbai IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B’’BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI

Bvc Brinks Diamond and Jewellery Services LLP, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 23(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 8994/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Jagadishassessment Year: 2018-19 Bvc Brinks Diamond & Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Jewellery Services Llp Income Tax (Dcit), Circle 23(1), Mumbai 203 B Wing The Capital, Bandra 9Th Floor, Piramal Chambers, Kurla Complex Behind Icici Jijibhoy Lane, Lalbaug, Parel Bank Bandra East, Mumbai- Mumbai-400012 400051 Pan: Aanfb0812E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms. Aneri Dani, Ca Department By Shri Swapnil Choudhari, Sr. Ar. Date Of Hearing 04.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 05.03.2026

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

encashment amounting to Rs.34,68,762/- which, according to the tax audit report, had not been paid before the due date prescribed under section 139(1) of the Act. However, in the computation of income the assessee had disallowed only Rs.26,42,531/- towards gratuity and Rs.29,56,798/- towards

Rekhaben Sharadkumar Mehta, Mumbai vs. Ward 42(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, Grounds No

ITA 8318/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Bijayananda Prusethrekhaben Sharadkumar Vs Ito Ward 42(1)(4) Mehta Room No.733, Kautilya Bhawan, 211 Tiwari Bhawan, S Modi Bkc, Mumbai 400051 Road, Kandivali West, Mumbai-400067 Pan:Ahppm8680G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Rushabh MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Bhagirath Ramawat (SR DR)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 151Section 250Section 69BSection 92A

under section 148. It is an admitted position that the assessee had not filed the return of 8 Rekhaben Sharadkumar Mehta income under section 139(1) of the Act. However, pursuant to the notice issued under section 148, the assessee filed the return of income. In the absence

Jignesh Natverlal Patel (Represnted by Late Natverlal Nanubhai Patel), Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 24(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6769/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawaljignesh Natverlal Patel Vs Ito Ward-24(3)(1), Mumbai (Represented By Late Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug, Natverlal Nanubhai Patel) Mumbai-400012 401 Adarsh Building, Rto Four Bunglows, Andheri (West), Mumbai-400053 Pan:Aaapp1767B Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Aditya RamchandranFor Respondent: Shri Sushil B. Shende (Sr DR)

Section 139(1)Section 147rSection 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151Section 151ASection 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL