← 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)

Shree Ramchandra Ingot India Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., CC-4(3), Kolkata

In the result, all six appeals of the assessee are allowed and all six

ITA 1366/KOL/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Nov 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: S/Shri & Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubey

For Appellant: Shri Manish Rastogi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA' D' BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE S/SHRI AND RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND PRADIP KUMAR

Shree Ramchandra Ingot India Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., CC-4(3), Kolkata

In the result, all six appeals of the assessee are allowed and all six appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1365/KOL/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Nov 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: S/Shriand Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubeyita No.1363/Kol/2025: Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Manish Rastogi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA‘ D’ BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE S/SHRIAND RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY

Shree Ramchandra Ingot India Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., CC - 4(3), Kolkata

In the result, all six appeals of the assessee are allowed and all six appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1364/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Nov 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: S/Shriand Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubeyita No.1363/Kol/2025: Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Manish Rastogi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA‘ D’ BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE S/SHRIAND RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY

Shree Ramchandra Ingot India Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., CC-4(3), Kolkata

In the result, all six appeals of the assessee are allowed and all six appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1363/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Nov 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: S/Shriand Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubeyita No.1363/Kol/2025: Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Manish Rastogi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA‘ D’ BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE S/SHRIAND RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY

ITO WD 2(1) Kol, Kolkata vs. Unicorn Plaza (P) Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and cross-objection of the assessee is also dismissed

ITA 2213/KOL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2011-12 Ito, Ward-2(1), Kolkata…………...….……………….……….……….……Appellant Vs. Unicorn Plaza (P) Ltd….………………………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Commerce House, 2A, Ganesh Chandra Avenue Room No.4, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700013. [Pan: Aaacu8963B] C.O. 53/Kol/2024 (In Ita No.2213/Kol/2024) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Unicorn Plaza (P) Ltd.….………………. ….……….…….……….……Cross-Objector Commerce House, 2A, Ganesh Chandra Avenue Room No.4, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700013. [Pan: Aaacu8963B] Vs. Ito, Ward-2(1), Kolkata ……………………………..…...…..…………….Respondent Appearances By: Shri S. Jhajharia, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri P. N. Barnwal, Cit- Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 03, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 19, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey:

Section 132Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 153ASection 250Section 68Section 69C

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH KOLKATA Before Shri Rajesh

Ramasamy Kandasamy, Karur vs. ITO, Ward-1, Karur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2023/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2023/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 V. Ramasamy Kandasamy, The Ito, No.4/76, Sf No.927, Sukkaliyur, Ward-1, Karur-639 003. Karur. [Pan: Ajgpk 4945 H]

For Appellant: Mr.H. Yeshwanth KumarFor Respondent: Ms.R. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 151

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी मनु कुमार िग"र

Marelli (India) Private Limited, Gurugram vs. Deputy Commissionar of Income-Tax, Circle 16(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 1136/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Sh. Sudhir Kumar & Sh.Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2020-21 Marelli (India) Private Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner Of 5Th Floor, Tower 8, Candor Income Tax, Circle 16(1) Teachspace,One Reality Project Cr Building, Delhi It/Ites Sez Village Tikri Sector 48 Gurugram Haryana-122018 Pan No. Aagcm2620K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 234BSection 250

filling portal within the prescribed time limit i.e. until the due date for filing return of income under section 139(1) of the Act. 4.7 In order to the avail the benefit of concessional rate of tax u/s.115BAA, a domestic company has to file form 10IC before the due date

Income Tax Officer, Raipur vs. Sanjay Kumar Punjabi, Raipur

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

ITA 565/RPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.565/Rpr/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2019-20 Income Tax Officer, Central Revenue Building, Civil Lines, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, 492001 .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

For Appellant: Mr. Sanjay Kumar PunjabiFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr.DR
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69ASection 80G

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "ायपीठ “एक-सद"” मामला रायपुर म" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH “SMC”, RAIPUR "ी पाथ

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 3(2), Kolkata vs. Sincere Commodities and Derivatives Market Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, both the captioned appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1256/KOL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

such transactions which have been duly recorded in books of accounts and also offered to tax in the return of income filed under section 139(1) of the Act. We note that the assessee submitted relevant documents to discharge its initial burden to prove the identity and creditworthiness and genuineness

Deputy Commissioner of Income Taxcentral Circle 3(2), Kolkata, Kolakta vs. Sincere Commodities and Derivatives Market Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, both the captioned appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1255/KOL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

such transactions which have been duly recorded in books of accounts and also offered to tax in the return of income filed under section 139(1) of the Act. We note that the assessee submitted relevant documents to discharge its initial burden to prove the identity and creditworthiness and genuineness

S R Constructions, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(2), Bengaluru

ITA 637/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Muthu Shankar,CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 40A

days from the date of receipt of notice which was duly served on the assessee on 05.09.2018. Assessee filed return of income under section 139(1) of the Act on 30.08.2015 and 08.08.2016 for the AY 2015-16& 2016-17 respectively. In response to notice under section 153A ... Years are unabated assessments and no assessment proceeding was pending on the date of search and the assessee filed return of income under section 139(1) of the Act. Assessee has voluntarily to buy peace of mind offered additional income and filed return of income in response to notice under

S R Constructions, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore

ITA 636/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

Section 40A

days from the date of receipt of notice which was duly served on the assessee on 05.09.2018. Assessee filed return of income under section 139(1) of the Act on 30.08.2015 and 08.08.2016 for the AY 2015-16& 2016-17 respectively. In response to notice under section 153A ... Years are unabated assessments and no assessment proceeding was pending on the date of search and the assessee filed return of income under section 139(1) of the Act. Assessee has voluntarily to buy peace of mind offered additional income and filed return of income in response to notice under

Nagahat Tea Estate Private Limited, Kolkata vs. Income Tax Officer Ward -1, Jorhat

ITA 20/GTY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati17 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 119(1)Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 139(9)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 80

disallowed only if the return of income is furnished beyond the due date specified in Section 139(1) of the Act. However, the appellant filed its return of income on 07.02 2022 well within the due date/extended due date specified u/s 139(1). 7. That the CPC while processing

Nagahat Tea Estate Private Limited, Kolkata vs. Income Tax Officer Ward -1, Jorhat

ITA 19/GTY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati17 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 119(1)Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 139(9)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 80

disallowed only if the return of income is furnished beyond the due date specified in Section 139(1) of the Act. However, the appellant filed its return of income on 07.02 2022 well within the due date/extended due date specified u/s 139(1). 7. That the CPC while processing

Nagahat Tea Estate Private Limited, Kolkata vs. Income Tax Officer Ward -1, Jorhat

ITA 18/GTY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati17 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 119(1)Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 139(9)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 80

disallowed only if the return of income is furnished beyond the due date specified in Section 139(1) of the Act. However, the appellant filed its return of income on 07.02 2022 well within the due date/extended due date specified u/s 139(1). 7. That the CPC while processing

Shree Chalala VI Ka Seva Sahakari Mandali Ltd., Amreli vs. The ITO Ward 3(1)(4), Rajkot-Amreli., Rajkot

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 358/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot17 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, A Ccountant Member & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 358/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2019-20) Shree Chalala Vi Ka Seva Sahakari Vs. The Ito Ward 3(1)(4), Mandali Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, Race Course Ring Chalala Haveli Road, Road, Dhari Amreli - 365630 Rajkot - 360001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aatas2273D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Ms. Devina Patel, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 27/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 17/11/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per, Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm; Captioned Appeal Filed By Assessee Pertaining To Assessment Year 2019-20, Is Directed Against Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi/Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Dated 31/03/2025, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 143(1) Of The Act. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: - 1. The Learned Addl/Jcit (A)-1, Kolkata Erred In Confirming Action Of Cpc, Bangalore In Disallowing Claim Of Deduction Of Rs. 3,51,828/- U/S Sop Of The Act By Failing To Appreciate That Provisions Of Sec. 143(1)(A)(V) Do Not Provide For Denial Of Deduction U/S 80P Of The Act When The Return Of Income Is Not Filed Within Time Allowed U/S 139(1) Of The Act But U/S 139(4). 2. The Learned Addl/Jcit (A)-1, Kolkata Erred In Upholding Action Of The Cpc, Bangalore In Making Adjustment To The Returned Income Of The Appellant By Way Of Shree Chalala Vikas Seva Sahkari Mandli Ltd.

For Appellant: Ms. Devina Patel, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav Ld. SR. DR
Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, A CCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI DINESH MOHAN

Reva Enterprise, Narmada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Bharuch

In the result, ITA No.259/SRT/2024 is partly allowed, ITA No

ITA 414/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.259, 380 & 414/Srt/2024 Assessment Years: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Reva Enterprises, बनाम/ Income Tax Officer, Vs. Plot No. 50, Gandhi Market, Ward – 2(4), Rajpipla Road, Ankleshwar, Bharuch Sarangpore, Narmada - 393001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aanfr8509E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) िनधा"रतीकीओरसे/Appellant By Shri Mehul Shah, Ca राज"कीओरसे /Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke (Sr. Dr) With Shri Kevin Langaliya, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 18/08/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 17/11/2025

Section 115BSection 131(1)(d)Section 133(6)Section 250Section 271ASection 271FSection 69A

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE MS. SUCHITRA RAGHUNATH KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT

Reva Enterprise, Narmada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Bharuch

In the result, ITA No.259/SRT/2024 is partly allowed, ITA No

ITA 380/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.259, 380 & 414/Srt/2024 Assessment Years: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Reva Enterprises, बनाम/ Income Tax Officer, Vs. Plot No. 50, Gandhi Market, Ward – 2(4), Rajpipla Road, Ankleshwar, Bharuch Sarangpore, Narmada - 393001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aanfr8509E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) िनधा"रतीकीओरसे/Appellant By Shri Mehul Shah, Ca राज"कीओरसे /Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke (Sr. Dr) With Shri Kevin Langaliya, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 18/08/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 17/11/2025

Section 115BSection 131(1)(d)Section 133(6)Section 250Section 271ASection 271FSection 69A

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE MS. SUCHITRA RAGHUNATH KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT

Reva Enterprise, Ankleshwar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(4), Bharuch

In the result, ITA No.259/SRT/2024 is partly allowed, ITA No

ITA 259/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.259, 380 & 414/Srt/2024 Assessment Years: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Reva Enterprises, बनाम/ Income Tax Officer, Vs. Plot No. 50, Gandhi Market, Ward – 2(4), Rajpipla Road, Ankleshwar, Bharuch Sarangpore, Narmada - 393001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aanfr8509E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) िनधा"रतीकीओरसे/Appellant By Shri Mehul Shah, Ca राज"कीओरसे /Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke (Sr. Dr) With Shri Kevin Langaliya, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 18/08/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 17/11/2025

Section 115BSection 131(1)(d)Section 133(6)Section 250Section 271ASection 271FSection 69A

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE MS. SUCHITRA RAGHUNATH KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT

Pavitar Singh, Jagadhri, Yamunanagar vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandigarh

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 653/CHANDI/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh17 Nov 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumarआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 653/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Pavitar Singh, Ito, बना 188, Vuillage Satgoli, Nwr-W-(65)(95) Bhagu Majra, Chandigarh म Jadadhri, Yamunanagar Vs. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Bteps4094J अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Rachit Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Vinod Kumar Chaudhary, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

Allahabad High Court, January 24, 2025), it was held that an assessee is under no obligation to file a return of income under section 139(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, if their total income does not exceed the maximum amount not chargeable to tax. In the said case