← 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)

Kollam District Police Department Employees Co-Operative Society, Kollam vs. ITO, Ward-2, Kollam

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 639/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm Assessment Year: 2017-18 Kollam District Police Department .......... Appellant Employees Co-Operative Society Lt No Q 1179, Near S P Office, Kollam-691001 [Pan: Aacak5573H] Vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department ......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Surendranath Rao, Ca Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Assessment Year: 2013-14 Porkulam Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. .......... Appellant (Via) Pazhanji, Thalappilly, Thrissur- 680542 [Pan: Aaaap4486A] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, W-1& Tps ......... Respondent Assessee By: ------- None ------- Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 29.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.10.2025 Kollam District Police Deptt. Employees Co.Op. Society & Porkulam Scb O R D E R Per: Anikesh Banerjee, Jm The Instant Appeal Of Both The Assessee Was Filed Against The Order Of The Learned National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [For Brevity, ‘Ld. Cit(A)’] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act’) For Assessment Year 2017-18, Date Of Order 10/07/2025 For Petitioner-1 & For Assessment Year 2013-14, Date Of Order 25/06/2025 For Petitioner-2.The Impugned Orders Were Emanated From The Order Of The Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department (In Short, ‘Ld. Ao’) Order Passed Under Section 271B Of The Act, Date Of Order 12/07/2023 For Ay Petritioner-1 &19/09/2022 For Petitioner-2. 2. Both The Appeals Have Common Issue & Common Fact. So, We Proceed To Dispose Off By Common Order. Ita No. 639/Coch/2025 Is Taken As Lead Case.

For Appellant: Shri Surendranath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271BSection 44ASection 80P(2)(a)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JM Assessment