“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)

Nikshep Infra Projects, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(3), Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1602/BANG/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Nov 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2023-24

For Appellant: Shri Sukruth, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 250Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY

Iqbal Maenuddin Shaikh, Mumbbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward22(1)(6), Mumbai

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

ITA 5584/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: ShriIqbal Maennuddin ShaikhFor Respondent: Shri Veerabhadra S Mahajan, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 44ASection 69A

remain that the assessee is a small trader engaged in the business of readymade garments. The return of income was duly filed under section 139(1) declaring total income of Rs.2,26,145/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Ld. AO noted cash deposits aggregating to Rs.59

Shree Sunder Nagar Jain Sangh, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemption) WD 2(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 3585/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarshree Sunder Nagar Jain V/S. Income Tax Officer (Exemption), Sangh बनाम Ward – 2(3), Mtnl Building, C/O G.P. Mehta & Co. Cas Peddar Road, Mumbai–400 026, 807, Tulsiani Chambers, Maharashtra Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aacts3778B Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Bhavik Chheda, ARFor Respondent: Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, Sr. DR

Section 11Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K(SMC)” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR

Prajesh Maneklal Rupareliya, Mumbai vs. 33(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the ground No

ITA 6608/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Arun Khodpia(Physical Hearing)

Section 115BSection 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 254(1)Section 69A

response to notice under section 148, the assessee filed return of income on 24.05.2022 declaring same income as declared in income under section 139(1) at Rs. 49.95 lacs. During the reassessment, the assessing officer issued show cause notice to the assessee on 17.04.2023 for seeking certain information. In response

Gaurav Kataria, Gurugram vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad

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

ITA 4194/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Mahfuzur Rahman, CAFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT DR

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 263Section 270A

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

Shri Shailender Vaid, Jammu vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Jammu

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

ITA 118/ASR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar10 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lalmeena, Hon'Ble & Shri Udayan Das Gupta, Hon'Bledeputy Commissioner Of Income- Shailender Vaid, Vs. House No. 179-P, Sector-3, Tax, Circle-L, Jammu (J&K) Trikuta Nagar, Jammu (J & K) Pan No. Aawpv6431C Assessee By Shri Joginder Singh, Ca Shri Charan Dass, Sr. Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing 24.09.2025. Ft . // .2025. Date Of Pronouncement

Section 124Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH (PHYSICAL), AMRITSAR BEFORE DR. MITHA LALMEENA, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI

Shri Basaveswar Co-Op Credit Society Niyamit, Palabhavi Raibag, Belgaum vs. Income Tax Officer, ITO Ward, Belagavi

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

ITA 218/PAN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji10 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalei T A. Nos. 218/Pan/2025 (A.Y.2017-18) Shri Basaveswar Co_Op Credit Vs Ito-Ward-4, Society Niyamit, Feroj Khimjibhai Cpx, . Near Gram Panchayat , Civil Hospital Road Main Road, Belagavi-590001. Palabhavi, Raibag, Karnataka. Belgaum-591235.Karnataka. Pan .No.Aagas9132A (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Assessee By Ms.Shree Raksha.Ar Revenue By Smt.Rijula Uniyal.Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 04.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 10.11.2025 Order Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Appeal Is Filed By The Assesse Against The Order Of The Addl/Jcit(A)-3 Chennai Passed U/Sec 250 Of The Act. The Assesse Has Raised The Grounds Of Appeal Challenging The Order Of The Nfac/ Cit(A) Sustaining Addition U/Sec68 Of The Act & The Denial Of Claim Of Deduction Under Section 80P Of The Act Applying The Provisions Of Section 80Ac Of The Act. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That, The Assessee Is A Credit Cooperative Society Engaged In Providing The Credit Facilities To Members. The Assessing Officer (Ao) Based On The Information & Data Analytics/ Cash Transactions Data

Section 80ASection 80P

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH PANAJI BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I T A. Nos

Shri Hargovind Ishwarbhai Patel, Surat vs. DCIT Central Circle-2, Surat

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

ITA 21/SRT/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Buayananda Pruseth

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253(3)Section 68

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI BUAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Islahi English Medium School, Kannur vs. ITO Ward 1 & Tps, Kannur

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

ITA 749/COCH/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin10 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2018-19 Islahi English Medium School .......... Appellant Irikkur P.O., Kannur 670593 [Pan: Aaaai9586J] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Kannur .......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Suresh Kumar,Ca Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 04.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.11.2025 O R D E R This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 04.03.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is An Association Of Persons Running An Educational Institution. No Regular Return Of Income Under The Provisions Of Section 139(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Was Filed By The Appellant For Ay 2018-19. Based On The Information That The Appellant Made Cash Deposit Of Rs. 90,10,470/-, The Ao Formed An Opinion That Income Escaped Assessment To Tax. Accordingly, After Complying The Procedure Laid

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Kumar,CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148A

case are that the appellant is an association of persons running an educational institution. No regular return of income under the provisions of section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) was filed by the appellant for AY 2018-19. Based on the information that the appellant

Amit Kumar, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 4(2), Jaipur

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

ITA 1087/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. C. L. Yadav, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT

Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148ASection 2

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh

Naveshwar Nagari Patsanstha Maryadit, Ratnagiri vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ratnagiri

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

ITA 2131/PUN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

For Appellant: Shri Anup ShahaFor Respondent: Shri Ajitesh Meena

Section 10ASection 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 80ASection 80P

Department of Cooperative, Marketing and Textiles and certified by the Auditor under the Cooperative Societies Act 30.07.2019. As per Explanation 2(ii) of section 139(1) of the Act as the accounts of the assessee other than the assessee referred in Explanation 2(aa) of section 139(1

All India Fine Art and Crafts Society, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward Expempt 1(1), Delhi, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 3730/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Mahajan, Sr. DR

Section 11Section 11(3)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270A

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

Purnima Singh, Ratlam vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC - Bengaluru

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 301/IND/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Indore07 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 44ASection 80Section 801B

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

Shobhit Gupta, Lucknow vs. DDIT CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 597/LKW/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow07 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2022-23 Shobhit Gupta V. Ddit Cpc C-241 Nirala Nagar, Lucknow- Central Processing 226020. Centre, Income Tax Department, Bengaluru. Pan: Ajkpg9478R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Vijay Prakash Agarwal, Advocate Shri Akshay Agarwal, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 28 10 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 07 11 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Prakash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. CIT(DR)

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 154Section 44A

following grounds of appeal: - “1. That the appellant is a partner in audited firm M/s. Printco and the due date as per section 139(1) was 31.10.2022 for AY 2022-23. The Learned Lower Authorities has erred in law and as well in facts that the appellant ... assessee filed his return of income in Form No. 10-IE on 27.10.2022, which was within the due date prescribed under section 139(1) of the Act, thereby fulfilling the requirement for opting for the new tax regime under section 115BAC of the Act. However, the CPC disallowed the claim

Federation of Ap Cooperative Urban Banks and Credit Societies Limited Hyd, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-9(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 464/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.464/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20) Federation Of Ap Vs. Income Tax Officer Cooperative Urban Banks Ward 9(1) & Credit Societies Ltd. Hyderabad Hyd, Hyderabad Pan:Aaaaf7350F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri V. Ravish Bhatt, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 29/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 07/11/2025

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Shri V. Ravish Bhatt, Sr. DR

under Section 80P of the Act, on the ground that the assessee had not filed its return within the due date prescribed under Section 139(1) of the Act, as the extended due date for filing the return was 31.08.2019. Consequently, the CPC determined the total income of the assessee ... disallowed the deduction under Section 80P of the Act since the assessee failed to file its return within the due date prescribed under Section 139(1) of the Act. He contended that the disallowance was in conformity with Section 143(1)(a)(ii) which permits adjustment in respect of incorrect

Universal Offset, Noida vs. ACIT Circle 5(3)(1), Noida

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 2149/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2019-20

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)

employees’ contribution towards PF/ESI on or before the “due” date prescribed in the corresponding statute instead of filing the return of income section 139(1) of the Act. In appeal the Learned First Appellate Authority affirmed the action of the AO, CPC. Aggrieved against the order of the First Appellate

Prem Lata Gupta, Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle, Karnal

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

ITA 1422/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Smt. Prem Lata Gupta, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of C-5/2A, Opp Cc Colony, Income Tax, Rana Pratap Bagh, North Delhi Central Circle Pin: 1100 07 Karnal. Pan: Aadpl3023F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, Adv., Shri Pawan GargFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Kaushal, CIT (DR)

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 250(6)

Office of Ld. AO by Ld. PCIT-12, Delhi vide order dated 05.08.2019. The assessee e-filed his return of income under Section 139(1) of the Act on 07.10.2017 before ITO, Ward-33(1), New Delhi declaring total income of Rs.7,47,320/-. Notice under Section 153A

Gurusukh Vintrade Services Pvt. Ltd., Raipur vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Raipur

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

ITA 572/RPR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur06 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.572/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2020-21 Gurusukh Vintrade Services Private Limited 6Th Floor, Shop No.15-16, Currency Tower, G.E Road, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Aadcg9611M

For Appellant: Shri Hardik Jain, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 148Section 194CSection 194ISection 250(4)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ “एक-सद"य” मामला रायपुर म" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH

Kanatalaw Seva Sahakari Mandali Ltd., Rajkot (Amreli) vs. The ITO Ward - 3 (1) (4) Amreli, Amreli

ITA 201/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot06 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.200 & 201/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years :2018-19 & 2019-20 Kanatalaw Seva Sahkari Mandli Income Tax Officer Limited Ward 3(1)(4), Amreli बनाम/ Kanatalaw, Savarkundla, Vs Amreli - 364515 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aakfk8797L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Written Submission राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Dheeraj Kumr Gupta, Ld. Sr-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 10/09/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06/11/2025 आदेश/Order Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, A.M

For Appellant: Written SubmissionFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Kumr Gupta, Ld. Sr-DR

Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 250Section 80P

subsequent amendments to section 80AC......, it make the claim for deduction under section 80P conditional on filing a return with due date under section 139(1) of the IT Act. conditions for claiming deduction under section 80P of the I T act has been made more stringent by reducing

Kanatalaw Seva Sahakari Mandali Ltd., Rajkot (Amreli) vs. The ITO Ward - 3 (1) (4) Amreli, Amreli

ITA 200/RJT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot06 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Written SubmissionFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Kumr Gupta, Ld. Sr-DR

Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 250Section 80P