← 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)

Mr. Anil, Ernakulam vs. ITO Non Corp Ward-1(1), Kochi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA Nos 614 &

ITA 615/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm

For Appellant: Shri C.V. Vishnu Das KFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271A

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

Mr. Anil, Ernakulam vs. ITO, Non Corp Ward-1(10, Kochi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA Nos 614 &

ITA 614/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm

For Appellant: Shri C.V. Vishnu Das KFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271A

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

Porkulam Service Co-Op.Bank Ltd, Thalappilly vs. Incometax Officer, Guruvayoor

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

ITA 605/COCH/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

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

Ala Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd, Thrissur vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Thrissur

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

ITA 581/COCH/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm Assessment Year: 2018-19 Ala Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd . .......... Appellant Santhipuram P.O., Kodungallur, Thrissur 680668 [Pan: Aadaa5833H] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Wd-2(1), Thrissur ......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Jojo, C.A., Advocate Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 28.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.10.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) Dated 17.06.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is A Co-Operative Society Registered Under The Kerala State Co-Operative Societies Act, 1969. It Is Classified As A Primary Agricultural Credit Co-Operative Society Engaged In The Business Of Providing Credit Facilities To Its Members & Accepting Deposits From Members. The Return Of 2 Ala Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. Income For Ay 2018-19 Was Filed On 28.12.2018 Claiming Deduction U/S. 80P Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act). Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The National E- Assessment Centre (Hereinafter Called "The Ao") Vide Order Dated 15.04.2021 Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 143(3A) & 143(3B) Of The Act At A Total Income Of Rs. 72,95,927/-. While Doing So, The Ao Denied Deduction U/S. 80P In Respect Of Interest Income 72,95,927/- Derived From District Co-Operative Bank.

For Appellant: Shri Jojo, C.A., AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 119BSection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 80ASection 80P

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

Ankit Jain, Tonk vs. Income Tax Officer, Tonk

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1303/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Oct 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Jaideep Malik, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (through V.C.)
Section 115BSection 153CSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69Section 69C

153C of the Act. 1. The appellant is an individual engaged in job work activities, who filed his original return of income under section 139(1) of the Act on 23.10.2015 declaring a total income of ₹2,63,496/-. 2. A search and seizure operation was conducted

Ankit Jain, Tonk vs. Income Tax Officer, Tonk

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1302/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Oct 2025AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Jaideep Malik, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (through V.C.)
Section 115BSection 153CSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69Section 69C

153C of the Act. 1. The appellant is an individual engaged in job work activities, who filed his original return of income under Section 139(1) of the Act on 23.10.2015 declaring a total income of ₹2,63,496/-. 2. A search and seizure operation was conducted

Anshul Jain, Tonk vs. Income Tax Officer, Tonk

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1301/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Oct 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Jaideep Malik, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (through V.C.)
Section 115BSection 153CSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69Section 69C

153C of the Act. 1. The appellant is an individual engaged in job work activities, who filed his original return of income under section 139(1) of the Act on 23.10.2015 declaring a total income of ₹2,63,496/-. 2. A search and seizure operation was conducted

Hyderabad Yadgiri Tollway Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr.CIT-1, Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1332/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 43A

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA

Snc Lavalin Inc., Delhi vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax/ Circle International Tax 3(1)(2), Delhi

In the result, the Appeal of the assessee is allowed, the Stay Application of the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 1760/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, D: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BRAJESH

P D Memorial Trust, Delhi vs. Dlc-Ca-2, Range- 48, Ward Exemp 2(4), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3784/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 139Section 139(1)Section 139(9)Section 143(1)

reasoning that the audit report in Form No. 10B had not been filed one month before the filing of the ITR under section 139(1) of 2 P.D.Memorial Trust the Act. After rejection of the claim of exemption under section 11 of the Act, the Assessing Officer (CPC) taxed ... silent. The Ld. Counsel submitted that the filing of audit report in Form 10B online one month before filing the ITR under section 139(1) of the Act was one of the requirements to avail the benefit under section 11 and 12 of the Act. The requirement of filing

Atul Vrajlal Karia, Rajkot vs. Ac / Dc (Int.Txn), Rajkot

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in above terms

ITA 133/RJT/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot29 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.133/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2012-13 Atul Vrajlal Karia Ac/Dc (Int. Txn), बनाम C/O. D.S. Karia & Co. Ca, 203, Rajkot Cosmo Complex, Mahila College Vs. Chowk, Kalawad Road, Rajkot Pan : Adwpk6568J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-DR
Section 127Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153CSection 250Section 282Section 69

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, राजकोट "यायपीठ, राजकोट। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN

Orchid Corp, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 1(1)(1), Surat

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

ITA 1119/SRT/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1119/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2021-22) (Hybrid Hearing) Orchid Corp., Vs. Ito, F-11, Orchid Ventura, Nr. New Lp Ward - 1(1)(1), Savani School, Palanpore Canal Surat Road, Surat - 395009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaffo2395F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Suresh K. Kabra, Ca Respondent By Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 31/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29/10/2025

Section 10B(8)Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 80ASection 80I

cannot be allowed, if the assessee does not file a return of income on or before the due date specified in section 139(1) of the Act. The appellant failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of section 80AC and hence, the appellant was not entitled to claim deduction

Padarthi Venkata Sivanagendra Prasada, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Tenali

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

ITA 457/VIZ/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam29 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble

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

following paragraphs. 4. Brief facts of the case are, assessee is an individual and has not filed return of income under section 139(1) of the Act. As per the information available with the department, the assessee has entered into the following transactions and has not filed return of income

The Kolavennu Large Sized Co Operative Credit Society Ltd, Vijayawada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(4), Vijayawada

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

ITA 454/VIZ/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam29 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.454/Viz/2025 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) The Kolavennu Large Sized Vs. Income Tax Officer-Ward-2(4) Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd., Income Tax Office D.No. 3-3/1, Kolavennu Cr Building, 1St Floor, Annex Kankipadu Mandal M.G. Road, Vijayawada – 520002 Krishna District - 521153 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aabat0640F] (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr.Ar

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

Brief facts of the case are that, assessee is a primary agricultural cooperative society, has not filed the return of income under section 139(1) of the Act. The case was selected for scrutiny, for the reason, that the assessee has made cash deposits amounting to Rs.37,57,500/- during ... under section 80Pof the Act of Rs.11,84,857/-. Ld. AO observing that the return was not filed within the due date under section 139(1) of the Act, treated the return as invalid and denied the deduction claimed by the assessee. Thereafter, Ld. AO proceeded to complete the assessment

The Kolkkalam Service Cooperative Bank Limited, Malappuram vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 & Tps, Tirur, Malappuram

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

ITA 650/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Kolkkalam Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. .......... Appellant Chengannur P.O., Malappuram 676503 [Pan: Aabat8320L] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 &Tps, Tirur ......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Amaljith, P.J., Ca Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 27.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.10.2025

For Appellant: Shri Amaljith, P.J., 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

Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 and Tps, Kannur vs. Kannur Building Materials Co Operative Society Limited, Pappinissery, Kannur

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue ITA No

ITA 600/COCH/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm Assessment Year: 2013-14 The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 & Tps .......... Appellant Aayakar Bhavban, Chovva P.O., Kannur 670006 Vs. Kannur Building Materials Co-Op. Society Ltd .......... Respondent No. C 1741, Pappinissery P.O., Kannur 670561 [Pan: Aaaak7151K]

For Appellant: Shri Amaljith P.J., CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 250Section 40Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

date of order 30/03/2016. 3. The brief fact the case is that the assessee is a cooperative society and filled the return under section 139(1) of the Act. The assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny. The assessee during the impugned assessment year engaged in sand mining and selling

Ananthavoor Service Cooperative Bank Ltd, Malappuram vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 & Tps, Tirur, Malappuram

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

ITA 593/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ananthavoor Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. .......... Appellant 13/707, Ananthavoor P.O., Malappuram 676301 [Pan: Aadaa0368F] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 & Tps, Tirur ......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Amaljith P.J., Ca Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 27.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.10.2025

For Appellant: Shri Amaljith P.J., CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 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

Kanippayyur Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd, Thrissur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Guruvayoor, Thrissur

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

ITA 590/COCH/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Oct 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm Assessment Year: 2017-18 Kanippayyur Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. .......... Appellant Kanippayyur, Thrissur 680517 [Pan: Aabtk8207E] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 & Tps, Guruvayoor..... Respondent Assessee By: ------- None ------- Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 27.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.10.2025

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271BSection 44ASection 80P

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

Ashish Daulatram Sariya, Ujjain vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 893/IND/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Paresh M Joshiassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 271(1)(b)Section 271F

आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, इंदौर"ायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND

Rural Development Foundation, Anand vs. CPC, Bengaluru Juris. AO- the ITO, Ward-Exemption, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 927/AHD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.927/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2019-20 Rural Development Cpc, Bengaluru बनाम/ Foundation Juris.Ao – The Ito Ward- V/S. Aitc, 2Nd Floor Exemption Narayan Complex Vadodara – 390 007 Nr.Shubh Laxmi Shopping Centre Station Road Anand – 388 001 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aabtr 1090 C (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Arti N. Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rameshwar P. Meena, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/10/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Siddhartha Nautiyal, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 21/02/2025 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2019-2020. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: Rural Development Foundation Vs. Cpc, Bengaluru Juris Ao The Ito, Ward-Exemption Asst. Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: Ms. Arti N. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rameshwar P. Meena, Sr.DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)(b)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250

with Rule 17B. It is an admitted position that although the return of income was filed belatedly beyond the due date prescribed under section 139(1) of the Act, it was nonetheless filed within the permissible time limit allowed under section 139(4) of the Act in view of Order ... decision also emphasized that the beneficial amendment made by the Finance Act, 2023, w.e.f. 01.04.2023, expressly recognizes that return of income filed under section 139(1) or Rural Development Foundation vs. CPC, Bengaluru Juris AO The ITO, Ward-Exemption Asst. Year : 2019-20 section 139(4) would satisfy the compliance