← 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)

Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax Central Circle - 6(2), Mumbai vs. Tata Aig General Insurance Co. Ltd, Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No.2 of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2403/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra (CIT DR)
Section 10(38)Section 111ASection 112Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234DSection 250

subject year on 28 November 2018, i.e., before the due date of 30 November 2018 applicable for filing of ROI as per section 139(1) of the Act. 7. The learned CIT(A), on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, erred in confirming the action

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 6(2), Mumbai vs. Tata Aig General Insurance Co. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the revenue’s bearing ITA No

ITA 2398/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra (CIT DR)
Section 10(38)Section 111ASection 112Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234DSection 250

subject year on 28 November 2018, i.e., before the due date of 30 November 2018 applicable for filing of ROI as per section 139(1) of the Act. 7. The learned CIT(A), on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, erred in confirming the action ... date of 30th November 2018, and therefore, no interest under section 234A is leviable up to the date of filing of return under section 139(1) of the Act. Considering the submissions of the assessee, we deem it appropriate to restore this issue to the file

Tata Aig General Insurance Company Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax-8(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the revenue’s bearing ITA No

ITA 1450/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra (CIT DR)
Section 10(38)Section 111ASection 112Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234DSection 250

subject year on 28 November 2018, i.e., before the due date of 30 November 2018 applicable for filing of ROI as per section 139(1) of the Act. 7. The learned CIT(A), on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, erred in confirming the action ... date of 30th November 2018, and therefore, no interest under section 234A is leviable up to the date of filing of return under section 139(1) of the Act. Considering the submissions of the assessee, we deem it appropriate to restore this issue to the file

Tata Aig General Insurance Company Limited (Tagic), Mumbai vs. Assessment Unit, Income-Tax Department

ITA 1432/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra (CIT DR)
Section 10(38)Section 111ASection 112Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234DSection 250

subject year on 28 November 2018, i.e., before the due date of 30 November 2018 applicable for filing of ROI as per section 139(1) of the Act. 7. The learned CIT(A), on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, erred in confirming the action

Adimulam Satyanarayana Proprietor, Vizianagaram vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Vizianagaram

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of my aforesaid observations

ITA 472/VIZ/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam04 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON'BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 115BSection 13Section 133(6)Section 139(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 69A

Ld.AR admitted that the assessee had failed to voluntarily file his return of income for the subject year under section 139(1) of the Act. Also, it was submitted by him that the assessee was though in receipt of a notice under section 142(1) of the Act, dated 13/02/2018 ... though the return of income filed by the assessee for the subject year, i.e., AY 2017-18 was beyond the period stipulated under section 139(1) or 139(4) or section 142(1) of the Act, but the AO was obligated to act upon the same as the assessment proceedings

N.A.M. Expressway Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-5(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 2044/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: the due date provided for filing return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act, which attracts the provisions section 43B, however, the said amount 3

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 270A(9)Section 274Section 43B

आयकर अपीलीय न्यायाधिकरण में, हैदराबाद ‘ए’ बेंच, हैदराबाद IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad “A” Bench, Hyderabad श्री मंजुनाथा

Ntt Managed Services India Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-5(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1165/HYD/2025[2023-24]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad04 Mar 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita.No.1165/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2023-2024 Ntt Managed Services India Private Limited, The Dcit, Vs. Hyderabad. Telangana. Circle-5(1), Hyderabad. Pin 500 081 Pan Aarcs7517G (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By -None- राज" व "ारा/Revenue By : Sri Mathivanan Sa, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 02.03.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 04.03.2026 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao:

For Respondent: Sri Mathivanan SA, Sr. AR
Section 108(8)Section 143(1)Section 80J

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘A’ Bench, Hyderabad BEFORE SHRI VIJAY

Zaheer Ahmed Syed, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., CC-2(2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 410/HYD/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Mar 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 80G

allowable if the same is, paid within 3 Zaheer Ahmed Syed due date of filing return of income as per the provisions of section 139(1) of the Act. c) The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the AO ought to have considered the fact that all payments

Veerakeralam Pacb, Coimbatore vs. ITO, Ncw 4(1), Coimbatore

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

ITA 3291/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Mar 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3291/Chny/2025 "नधा#रण वष# /Assessment Year: 2019-20

For Respondent: 11.02.2026
Section 10ASection 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 80ASection 80P

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘B’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी जॉज" जॉज

S 1284 Thathaiyangarpatty Paccs Ltd., Namakkal vs. ITO, Ward-2, Namakkal

ITA 3172/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George Kand Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.3171 & 3172/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 S 1284 Thathaiyangarpatty Primary The Income Tax Officer, Agricultural Co-Operative Credit Vs. Ward-2, Society Ltd., Namakkal. Karaikuruchipudur P.O., Namakkal – 637 018. Pan: Aagas 9153H

For Appellant: Mr. A. Tamilamudan, C.A ,-For Respondent: Ms. Aswathy, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 250Section 69ASection 80P

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी जॉज" जॉज" के, उपा

S 1284, Thathaiyangarpatty Paccs Ltd., Namakkal vs. ITO, Ward-2, Namakkal

ITA 3171/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George Kand Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.3171 & 3172/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 S 1284 Thathaiyangarpatty Primary The Income Tax Officer, Agricultural Co-Operative Credit Vs. Ward-2, Society Ltd., Namakkal. Karaikuruchipudur P.O., Namakkal – 637 018. Pan: Aagas 9153H

For Appellant: Mr. A. Tamilamudan, C.A ,-For Respondent: Ms. Aswathy, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 250Section 69ASection 80P

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी जॉज" जॉज" के, उपा

Income-Tax Officer, Tiruchirappalli vs. Palanikumar Velusamy Krishnakumar, Tiruchirappalli

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 2998/CHNY/2025[2017]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Mar 2026

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy. S

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms.R. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी एबी टी. वक", "ाियक

Mm 289 Thondamanginam Primary Agri Co-Op Credit Society, Karur vs. Income Tax Oficer, Karur

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

ITA 2880/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy.S & Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2880/Chny/2025 िनधा#रण वष# /Assessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 139(1)Section 148Section 250Section 80ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

Income Tax Act, 1961, has been rejected. Admittedly, the returns were not filed by the due date as per Section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. All the petitioners in these writ petitions are Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society. The denial of the benefit of exempt deduction under

Somasundaram Vigneshwaran, Madurai vs. ACIT (Central Circle) -1, Mudarai, Madurai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1728/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Ms. Padmavathy, S.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1728/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2022-23 Somasundaram Vigneshwaran, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Meenakshi Kovil Street, Income Tax, Sri Meenakshi Complex, 1St Floor, Central Circle 1, Madurai 625 001. Madurai. [Pan: Akppv0081K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : None ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Shiva Srinivas, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 25.02.2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04.03.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 17.04.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 19, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2022-23. 2. When The Appeal Was Taken Up For Hearing, None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Nor Filed Any Adjournment Petition. On Examination Of The Record, It Is Noted That The Assessee Filed This Appeal On 14.06.2025 & After Scrutiny, The Registry, Itat Chennai Benches Issued Notice

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 131Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

sales register, purchase and collie bills issued to the skilled labours. 4. The assessee has filed return of income under section 139(1) of the Act on 07.11.2022 for the A.Y. 2022-23 admitting total income of ₹.2,69,59,980/. The case was selected for scrutiny by serving notice

Mahaveer Singh, Ahmedabad vs. The PCIT, Ahmedabad-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 840/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234FSection 263(1)Section 270ASection 270A(2)(b)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 44A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “A” BENCH Before: DR. BRR Kumar, Vice President And Shri T. R. Senthil

Bipinkumar Manilal Thakor, Gandhinagar, Gujarat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Gandhinagar, Udyog Bhavan

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

ITA 1908/AHD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2013-14

For Appellant: Hardav Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Veerbadram Vislavath, Sr. D.R
Section 10(1)Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 276CSection 69A

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “SMC” BENCH Before Dr. BRR Kumar, Vice President And Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member

Jyoti Shroff, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 29, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal stands dismissed and the substantial question of law is answered against the revenue

ITA 2278/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Mar 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Jyoti Shroff Dcit, Circle-29, Kolkata

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Pandey, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT

Shri. John Kishore, Tamil Nadu vs. Assessing Officer, Madurai

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

ITA 4090/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 4090/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21 Shri John Kishore, The Deputy Commissioner No.13, Munsif Court South Vs. Of Income Tax, Street, Sattur, Non-Corporate Circle 2, Virudhunagar – 626 203. Madurai Pan: Aztpj 1241L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri S.P. Chidambaram, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Aroon Praasad, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.02.2026 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 02.03.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R Per George George K: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Addl./Jcit(A)’S, Indore Order Dated 09.10.2025 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2020-21. :- 2 -: 2. The Solitary Issue That Is Raised Is Whether The First Appellate Authority (Faa) Had Erred In Law & On Facts In Not Granting Foreign Tax Credit (Ftc) Of Rs.5,73,078/-.

For Appellant: Shri S.P. Chidambaram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Aroon Praasad, Addl.CIT
Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 90

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी जॉज" जॉज

Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner Income Tax, Exemptions, Circle-1, Bangalore

ITA 355/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Sudheendra B.R, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand H Kalakeri, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 13(8)Section 143(3)Section 153(1)Section 2(15)Section 250Section 43B

addition / disallowance under section 43B in respect of slum improvement cess of Rs. 20,04,651 not paid within the due date under section 139(1). 3.4 On facts and circumstances of the case and law applicable, impugned addition / disallowance under section 43B in respect of slum improvement cess

Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Exemptions, Circle-1, Bangalore

ITA 354/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Sudheendra B.R, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand H Kalakeri, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 13(8)Section 143(3)Section 153(1)Section 2(15)Section 250Section 43B

addition / disallowance under section 43B in respect of slum improvement cess of Rs. 20,04,651 not paid within the due date under section 139(1). 3.4 On facts and circumstances of the case and law applicable, impugned addition / disallowance under section 43B in respect of slum improvement cess