← 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)

Deepak Communication, Ajit Nagar vs. Assessing Officer, Delhi

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

ITA 3076/DEL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Oct 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.3076/िद"ी/2025 (िन.व. 2017-18) Deepak Communication, Gali No.4, Ajit Nagar, Gandhi Nagar, ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Delhi 110031 Pan: Aamfd-3905-A बनाम Vs. Assessing Officer, Ward-60(6), ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Delhi 110002 अपीलाथ" "ारा/Appellant By : None "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By : Ms. Sudha Gupta, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 31/07/2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 27/10/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against An Ex-Parte Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short ‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 08.09.2023, For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Solitary Issue, In The Present Appeal By The Assessee Is Against Levy Of Penalty U/S.271Aac(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Amounting To Rs.1,04,674/-. The Assesssee Had Deposited Cash Amounting To Rs.13,55,000/- During Demonetization Period I.E. Between 09.11.2016 To 30.12.2016 In His Bank Account Maintained With Yes Bank Ltd. Krishna Nagar Delhi, Account No. 226190000295. The Return Of Income Was Filed

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Sudha Gupta, Sr.DR
Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 271ASection 274Section 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण िद"ी पीठ “एस एम सी”, िद"ी "ी िवकास अव"थी, "ाियक सद" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

Mahipal Yadav -Through Sunita (L/H)., Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 43(1), New Delhi

In the result, impugned order is modified to the extent of disallowance made u/s

ITA 1659/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.1659/िद"ी/2025 (िन.व. 2018-19) Mahipal Yadav, Through Sunita Legal Heir, C/O Ca M.R Sahu, House No. 651, 1St Floor, Sector-10A, Nr. G.D Goenka Public School, ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Gurgaon, Haryana 122001 Pan: Abypy-4143-R बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, R. No. 1709, 17Th Floor, E-2, Block Civic Centre, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent New Delhi 110002 अपीलाथ" "ारा/Appellant By : Shri M. R Sahu, Chartered Accountant "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By : Ms. Sudha Gupta, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 31/07/2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 27/10/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), 15, Delhi [In Short ‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 31.01.2025, For Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Shri M. R Sahu, Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Narrating Facts Of The Case Submitted That The Addition Was Made By The Cpc U/S.143(1) Of The Income Tax Act,1961(Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Disallowing Assessee’S Claim U/S.23(1)(Va) Of The Act For Contribution Made Towards To Provident Fund (Pf) &

For Appellant: Shri M. R Sahu, Chartered AccountantFor Respondent: Ms. Sudha Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 23(1)(va)Section 36(1)(va)

only if such share was deposited before the time limit under the respective statutes and not before the due date under Section 139(1) of the IT Act. In the fact situation, certainly it cannot be said that the Tribunal has overlooked the existing position in law, as laid down

Chithalpadi Pacs Ltd., Dharmapuri vs. ITO, Ward-1, Dharmapuri

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1788/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1787 & 1788/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 & 2022-23 Chinthalpadi Primary Agri. Co-Operative Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Society Limited, Chinthalpadi Village, Ward 1, Chinthalpadi Post, Pappireddipatty Tk, Dharmapuri. Dharmapuri 635 302. [Pan:Aaaac9429J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : None ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Dr. M. Mohan Babu, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 09.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.10.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Both Dated 24.03.2025 Passed By The Addl./Jcit(A)-3, Ahmedabad For The Assessment Years 2021-22 & 2022-23. 2. Since Issues Raised In Both The Appeals Of The Assessee Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed To Hear The Appeals Together & Pass Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. M. Mohan Babu, Addl. CIT
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 80Section 80ASection 80PSection 80P(2)

deduction claimed by the appellant would be admissible only when the return of income is filed within time limit mentioned in the section 139(1) of IT Act. The appellant has mentioned that due to Cooperative Audit delay and pressure received from administrators forced the delay in filing the return

Chinthalpadi Pacs Ltd., Dharmapuri vs. ITO, Ward-1, Dharmapuri

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1787/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1787 & 1788/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 & 2022-23 Chinthalpadi Primary Agri. Co-Operative Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Society Limited, Chinthalpadi Village, Ward 1, Chinthalpadi Post, Pappireddipatty Tk, Dharmapuri. Dharmapuri 635 302. [Pan:Aaaac9429J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : None ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Dr. M. Mohan Babu, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 09.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.10.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Both Dated 24.03.2025 Passed By The Addl./Jcit(A)-3, Ahmedabad For The Assessment Years 2021-22 & 2022-23. 2. Since Issues Raised In Both The Appeals Of The Assessee Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed To Hear The Appeals Together & Pass Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. M. Mohan Babu, Addl. CIT
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 80Section 80ASection 80PSection 80P(2)

deduction claimed by the appellant would be admissible only when the return of income is filed within time limit mentioned in the section 139(1) of IT Act. The appellant has mentioned that due to Cooperative Audit delay and pressure received from administrators forced the delay in filing the return