← 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)

Ujjal Sinha, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle 4(1), Kolkata

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1932/KOL/2025[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Nov 2025AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.1931, 1932, 1934 & 1935/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2012-13 & 2012-13 Ujjal Sinha……………….……..……………………….……….……….……Appellant 57/3, Ballygunge Circular Road, Ballygunge S.O, Kol- 700019.. [Pan: Aeips4499F] Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-4(1), Kolkata….……..……………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Lata Goyal, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sanat Kr. Raha, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 28, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 13, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Dated 05.08.25, 05.08.25, 04.08.25 & 04.08.25 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Ld. Cit(A)”] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”] Confirming Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act Levied By The Assessing Officer. Since The Issues Involved In All The Appeals Are Common & Relate To The Same Assessee, Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order.

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 24Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

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

Ujjal Sinha, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle 4(1), Kolkata

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1931/KOL/2025[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Nov 2025AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 24Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

areata arte, aterra dle, Hrerarar INTHE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH KOLKATA Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member and

Klene Paks Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Bengaluru

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

ITA 1772/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri H Naginchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand H Kalakeri, CIT
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K, JUDICIAL

Klene Paks Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Bengaluru

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

ITA 1771/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri H Naginchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand H Kalakeri, CIT
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K, JUDICIAL

Sapana Shrinivas Samal, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 42(3)(3), Mumbai

The appeal is allowed

ITA 4798/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Shri Prabhash Shankar: A.Y : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69

limitation. Notwithstanding the inaction on the part of the assessee at every stage of the proceedings starting from the filing of return under Section 139(1) of the Act and thereafter in response to notice under Section 148A of the Act and the fact that there were no responses

M/S Nandlal Keshardeo, Ranchi vs. ACIT, Central Circle (1), Ranchi

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

ITA 15/RAN/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi12 Nov 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274

Dated... or have without reasonable cause failed to furnish it within the allowed and the manner required by the side section 139(1) or by such notice. *Have without reasonable cause failed to comply with a notice under section 22(4)/23(2) of the India Income

Creative Realmart Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-3(5), Jaipur

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

ITA 457/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Filing Of Appeal In Form-35 & Appellant Has Not Done Any Non-Compliance As Per Section 249(4)(B) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961

For Appellant: Shri Prateek Kedawat, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT (DR)
Section 115BSection 147Section 148Section 249(4)(a)Section 249(4)(b)

आयकरअपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुरन्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,’’A” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh]U;kf

Bala Devi, Jaipur Rural vs. ITO, Jaipur

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

ITA 1306/JPR/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Nov 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.1306/JPR/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष / AssessmentYear : 2013-14 Smt. Bala Devi Dhani :Kankaraiwali, Saravatpura Gram: Amer, Via: Kalwad, Tehsil: Amer Jaipur 303 706 (Raj) Vs. बनाम The ITO Ward 7(4) Jaipur प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: CPCPD 3195 L अपीलार्थी / Appellant निर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby : Shri Shyam Sunder Jangid, Advocate राजस्व की ओरसे/Revenue by: Mrs. Harshi

For Appellant: Shri Shyam Sunder Jangid, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Harshita Choudhary, Addl.CIT (DR)
Section 148

before the revenue. Further, the assessee has also failed to furnish her retum of income required as per the provision of section 139(1) or by the provisos to that sub section before the end of the relevant assessment year and also in compliance to the notice issued

Somnath Ramdas Jadhav, Ahmednagar vs. ITO Ward 2, Ahmednagar

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 441/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Shashank Ojha
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

Somnath Ramdas Jadhav, Ahmednagar vs. ITO, Ward 2, Ahmednagar

Accordingly, the appeal in ITA No.1092/PUN/2025 for A.Y. 2013-14 involving the issue of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is allowed

ITA 440/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Shashank Ojha
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

Somnath Ramdas Jadhav, Ahmednagar vs. ITO, Ward 2, Ahmednagar

Accordingly, the appeal in ITA No.1092/PUN/2025 for A.Y. 2013-14 involving the issue of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is allowed

ITA 439/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Shashank Ojha
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

Laxminarayan Ramswarup Maniyar, Jalgaon vs. Circle-1, Jalgaon

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

ITA 1203/PUN/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1203/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2021-22 Laxminarayan Ramswarup Vs. Acit, Circle-1, Jalgaon. Maniyar, Sitaram Ramswarup, 105, Polan Peth, Dana Bazar, Jalgaon- 425001. Pan : Aaqpm9220L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Vinay V. Kawdia Revenue By : Shri Harshit Bari Date Of Hearing : 21.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.11.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 13.03.2025 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2021-22. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1) In The Absence Of Conditions Precedent For Invoking Provisions Of S. 143(1)(A)(Iii) Of The Act, The Learned Cit(A), Nfac Has Erred In Confirming The Adjustment Of Rs. 8,03,196/- Made By Cpc U/S 143(1)(A)(Iii) Of The Act By Denying The Set Off Of Brought Forward Unabsorbed Depreciation Of Earlier Years Against Current Years Income.

For Appellant: Shri Vinay V. KawdiaFor Respondent: Shri Harshit Bari
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

Somnath Ramdas Jadhav, Ahmednagar vs. ITO Ward 2, Ahmednagar

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1093/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

Somnath Ramdas Jadhav, Ahmednagar vs. ITO Ward2, Ahmednagar

Accordingly, the appeal in ITA No.1092/PUN/2025 for A.Y. 2013-14 involving the issue of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is allowed

ITA 1092/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Shashank Ojha
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

Somnath Ramdas Jadhav, Ahmednagar vs. ITO Ward 2, Ahmednagar

Accordingly, the appeal in ITA No.1092/PUN/2025 for A.Y. 2013-14 involving the issue of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is allowed

ITA 1089/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Shashank Ojha
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

Shahjahan Shahalam Shaikh, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 41(1)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 5574/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosaina.Ys: 2018-19

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 5Section 56(2)

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER A.Ys: 2018-19 Shahjahan

Sol Entertainment Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 11(2)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 4924/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Om Prakash Kant

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

respective welfare statutes (i.e., the EPF Act and the ESIC Act), were nonetheless deposited before the due date for filing return under section 139(1), and hence allowable under section 43B. In support, the appellant relied on earlier judgments including CIT v. Alom Extrusions Ltd. and Hindustan Organics Chemicals ... while employer's contributions are covered by section 43B and may be allowed if paid before the due date of filing return under section 139(1), employees' contributions are subject to a stricter timeline, i.e., they must be deposited within the due dates prescribed under the relevant labour law (EPF/ESIC

Osttra India Services Private Limited, Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 19(1), Cr Building, Delhi

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

ITA 3484/DEL/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Nov 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2023-24 Osttra India Services Private Vs Assistant Commissioner Limited Lgf.A-16/9 Vasant Of Income Tax, Circle Vihar, South-West Delhi, New 1991) Cr Building, Delhi Delhi 110057 Pan No. Aaocm6253C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115BSection 138(1)Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 234B

time of hearing of the appeal. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income under section 139(1) of the Act on 23-11-2023 declaring a total income of Rs.34,17,46,770/- under the normal provisions and computing ... provision mandates that the option under section 115BAA must be exercised in the prescribed form and manner before the due date specified under section 139(1). Since the appellant failed to comply with this mandatory requirement, the eligibility to be taxed at concessional rates under section 115BAA did not arises

Gourav Bhargava, Bhopal vs. Addl/JCIT(A)-1 Delhi, Delhi

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 235/IND/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Indore11 Nov 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 253(5)Section 43B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PARESH M. JOSHI

Sanjay Kumar Gupta, Burdwan vs. ACIT, Central Circle 2(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 791/KOL/2025[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Nov 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm It(Ss)A No. 50/Kol/2025 (Assessment Year: 2020-21) Sanjay Kumar Gupta Jamuria Hat, Jamuria Thana Acit, Cc 2(1) More, Bypass Road, 110, Shantipally, E.M. Bypass, Vs. Jamurai, Burdwan, Kolkata-700107, West Bengal West Bengal-713336 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aczpg4735H Assessee By : Shri S.K. Tulsiyan & Ms. Sonam Bajoria, Ars Revenue By : Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan &For Respondent: Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM