← 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)

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Guwahati vs. The Assam Cooerative Apex Bank Limited, Guwahati

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 160/GTY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati28 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: The Hon'Ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Itat) Was On Or Before 31/05/2025. However, The Appeal Was Filed Before The Hon'Ble Itat, Guwahati, On 18/06/2025, Resulting A Delay Of 18 Days Due To The Following Reasons. Exceptional Workload Due To Time-Barring Assessments & Initial Budget Collection Monitoring (March 2025): The Period Immediately Preceding The Appeal

Section 250Section 40

disallowance of the expenditure, if TDS is not deducted and / or deposited within the due date of furnishing return of income under section 139(1). Since the assessee did not deposit the TDS within the due date u/s 139(1), the disallowance is restricted

Deepa Jhunjhunwala, Shillong vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -1, Shillong

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 127/GTY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati28 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A) and thereafter aggrieved the assessee has approached the ITAT with the following grounds:

Section 139(4)Section 139(9)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 80Section 80ASection 80I

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL GUWAHATI BENCH, GUWAHATI (VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA) SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY

Deepa Jhunjhunwala, Shillong vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Shillong

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 126/GTY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati28 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A) and thereafter aggrieved the assessee has approached the ITAT with the following grounds:

Section 139(4)Section 139(9)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 80Section 80ASection 80I

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL GUWAHATI BENCH, GUWAHATI (VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA) SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY

Edakkad Urban Sahakarana Sangam, Kannur vs. ITO, Ward-1 & Tps, Kannur

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

ITA 596/COCH/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Shri Akhil Shaji, Advocate
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 148Section 80ASection 80A(5)Section 80P

were made by the assessee in a return of income filed by him. That return can be under Sections 139(1), 139(4), 142(1) or Section 148, and to be valid, had to be filed within the due date contemplated under those provisions. Under Section 80A(5), the claim ... furnish a return of his income for such assessment year on or before the due date specified in Section 139(1) of the IT Act. In other words, after 1.4.2018, even if the assessee makes his claim for deduction under Section 80P in a return filed within time under Sections

Ram Khilari Meena, Dausa vs. ITO, Dausa

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1292/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Mukesh Khandelwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 44A

reproduced herein below: The appellant is dependent on agriculture and is not literate. He did not file his ITR in terms of section 139(1) of the Income tax Act, 1961. The case of the assessee case was reopened on the basis of information received by the ld. AO that

Arif Industries Pvt.Ltd., Lucknow vs. CIT(A), Lucknow

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

ITA 638/LKW/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudharyआयकर अपील सं/ Ita No.638/Lkw/2024 ननिाारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2022-23 Arif Industries Pvt Ltd V. Commissioner Of Income 2Nd Floor Metro City Centre, Tax Appeals/National Metro City, Paper Mill Faceless Appeal Centre Compound, Nishat Ganj, Delhi. Lucknow-226006. Pan:Aacca2048M अपीलार्थी/(Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी/(Respondent) अपीलार्थी कक और से/Appellant By: Shri Rajeev Joshi, Ca प्रत्यर्थी कक और से /Respondent By: Shri Amit Kumar, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई कक तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 09 09 2025 घोर्णा कक तारीख/ Date Of 28 10 2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Joshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Amit Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 44ASection 80

regarding the fact that Form No. 10CCB was filed on 13.10.2022, i.e., before the due date for filing the return of income under section 139(1) of the Act. We hold accordingly. We hereby direct the AO to allow the claim of the assessee in accordance with law treating that

Triloknath Vatsalya Vatika, Gandhinagar vs. The Dy.CIT, CPC, Bangalore Present Jao- the ITO, Ward-1 (Exemption), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1092/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1092/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Triloknath Vatsalya Vatika The Dy.Cit बनाम/ At Balva Cpc Bangalore. V/S. Nr. Tahuko Hotel Present Jao Kalol The Ito Ward-1(Exemption) Gandhinagar – 382 001 Ahmedabad-380 015 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aants 5604 B (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kushal Fofaria, Ar Revenue By : Shri R.P. Rastogi, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/10/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Siddhartha Nautiyal, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 10/03/2025 Passed By The Office Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeal Addl/Jcit(A)-Gwalior [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”), For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Kushal Fofaria, ARFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Rastogi, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 119(2)Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 12A(1)(b)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 250Section 44A

registered under section 12A of the Act and had filed its return of income beyond the due date of 31.07.2017 prescribed under section 139(1) of the Act and further that the audit report in Form 10B was uploaded belatedly on 13.06.2019, long after the specified date ... DCIT CPC Bangalore Present JAO – The ITO Ward-1 € Asst. Year : 2017-18 prior to the due date for filing the return under section 139(1) of the Act. Since the appellant failed to furnish Form 10B within the prescribed time, the CPC was justified in denying exemption under sections

Gfcl Ev Products Limited, Panchmahal vs. The ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1759/AHD/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Oct 2025AY 2023-24
For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Soparkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Chand Meena, Sr.DR
Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 143(1)(b)Section 250

option under section 115BAB for A.Y. 2022-23 by filing Form No. 10ID on 31.10.2022, i.e., within the due date prescribed under section 139(1) of the Act. The assessee contended that, once exercised, the option under section 115BAB of the Act continues for subsequent assessment years and that there ... from Assessment Year 2022-23 by filing Form No. 10ID electronically on 31.10.2022, which was well within the prescribed time under section 139(1). Once such an option is exercised, it continues for all subsequent assessment years and there is no statutory requirement to file Form No. 10ID afresh every

Navnirman Infracon Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 10(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 689/KOL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shriand Rajesh Kumar & Sonjoy Sarma

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Kumar Mehta, Addl. Sr. DR
Section 148Section 250Section 56(2)(via)Section 56(2)(viia)

ITA No.689/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2011-12 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA 'C' BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE S/SHRIAND RAJESH KUMAR

DCIT Central Circle 1 4 Kolkata, Kolkata vs. Murlidhar Ratanlal Exports Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the COs of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2245/KOL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tulsyan &For Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, DR
Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

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

DCIT, Central Circle-1(4), Kolkata vs. Murlidhar Ratanlal Exports Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the COs of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2196/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tulsyan &For Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, DR
Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

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

DCIT, Central Circle-1(4), Kolkata vs. Murlidhar Ratanlal Exports Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the COs of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2187/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tulsyan &For Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, DR
Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

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

DCIT, Central Circle-1(4), Kolkata vs. Murlidhar Ratanlal Exports Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the COs of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2179/KOL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tulsyan &For Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, DR
Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

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

DCIT, Central Circle-1(4), Kolkata vs. Murlidhar Ratanlal Exports Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the

ITA 2178/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tulsyan &For Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, DR
Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

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

Gokuldass Srinivasan, Udumalaipettai vs. ITO, Ward-2(4), Tiruppur

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2230/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

Section 139(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 194ASection 263

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

Gokuldass Srinivasan, Udumalaipettai vs. PCIT, Coimbatore

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1061/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

Section 139(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 194ASection 263

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

Nc Jewellers, Delhi vs. DCIT, CC-26, Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee was allowed for the statistical purpose

ITA 3464/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year- 2021-22 Nc Jewellers Vs. Dcit, Cc-26, Delhi 7, S.B. Sarafa Market, Chandni Chowk, Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “E”, DELHI BEFORE SH. S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH

Surabhi Shodh Sansthan, Delhi vs. DCIT Circle Exemp 2(1), Delhi

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

ITA 3042/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. M. Balaganesh & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year2017-18 Surabhi Shodh Sansthan Vs. Dcit, Circle Exemp-2(1), 1428 Maliwara , Chandni Civic Centre, Minto Road, Chowk Delhi 110006 New Delhi Pan No.Aapts1404B (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80G(5)(vi)

filing the audit report. He further submitted that filing the audit report in Form 10 online on or 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 ... Form 10 online on or before filing ITR under section 139(1) of the Act was directory in nature and thus was curable defect. The Assessing Officer should have considered the uploaded audit report in Form 10 at the time of processing the ITR under section 143(1

Aapna Marble, G T Road Bhucho Kalan vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle II Bathinda

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

ITA 639/ASR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar27 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kalia, C.A
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR (HYBRID COURT) BEFORE SH. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH

Katrathal Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Limited, Katrathal vs. ITO Ward 1 Sikar, Sikar

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 1001/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Oct 2025AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 144BSection 147Section 147rSection 148Section 148ASection 151Section 234ASection 250

filed its return of income for the year under consideration on or before the specified date/due date as per the provisions of section 139(1) of the Act. Believing that the appellant had some income chargeable to tax that had escaped assessment, the case of the appellant was reopened ... appellant filed the return of income on 14/04/2023however the same was much beyond the date for filing of return in terms of section 139(1) of the Act. Since the appellant has not filed its Return of Income for the year under consideration on or before the due date