“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)

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Ethirajulu Vajravel Kumaran, Tiruvannamalai

In the result, all the six appeals of the Revenue are

ITA 1651/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri Shiva Srinivas, CITFor Respondent: Shri R. Venkata Raman, CA

Section 1Section 132Section 139(1)Section 14Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

serent arttehre ara, ‘al’ saa, Ueas IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI AN sist atrot &, Soar Ue

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Ethirajulu Vajravel Kumaran, Chennai

In the result, all the six appeals of the Revenue are

ITA 1650/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri Shiva Srinivas, CITFor Respondent: Shri R. Venkata Raman, CA

Section 1Section 132Section 139(1)Section 14Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

serent arttehre ara, ‘al’ saa, Ueas IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI AN sist atrot &, Soar Ue

Hewlett Packard Financial Services (India) P. Ltd, Bangalore vs. Asst CIT Cir 2(1)(2), Bangaluru

Accordingly, the ground is dismissed as not pressed

ITA 915/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250Section 41

allowed to be carried forward if the return is not filed within the due date for filing the return as specified under section 139(1). Accordingly, the assessee's argument is that the requirement to file the return of income within the due date under section 139(1) is applicable ... inclined to agree with the contention of the assessee that the requirement to file the return of income within the due date under section 139(1) is not a condition precedent to carry forward the unabsorbed depreciation. Further in this regard, we notice that the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High

Jaisingh Krushnarao Chavhan, Nagpur vs. ITO Ward 4, Aaykar Bhavan Nagpur

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

ITA 562/NAG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur17 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalejaishingh Krushnarao Chavhan, 95, Butibori Industrial Area,Tiwari, Nagpur 440 002, ……………. Appellant Maharashtra. Pan -Adopc8820B V/S Income Tax Officer Ward–4, ……………. Respondent Aayakar Bhavan, Nagpur-440001, Maharashtra. Assessee By:Shri.Vivek K. Jani. A.R. Revenue By :Shri.Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri.Vivek K. Jani. A.RFor Respondent: Shri.Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.DR

Section 139(1)Section 44A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Jaishingh Krushnarao Chavhan, 95

No H 1043 Bhujabalapatnam Primary Agriculture Cooperative Credit Society Ltd, Krishna Dist vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Gudiwada

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

ITA 426/VIZ/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam17 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: The Tribunal. The Petitioner/Appellant Society Has Filed An Affidavit Explaining The Reasons For The Delay In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal, Wherein It Was Submitted That The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) Was Sent To The Email Of Its Then Ar, Ca B.V. Rao, Instead Of Its Email "Krishnapacs085@Gmail.Com," As Had Been Requested By It. The Appellant Society Came To Know Of The Order Only When Itd Officials Called Upon It To Pay The Tax Arrears. It Further Submitted That, Due To The Above Circumstances Beyond Its Control & Prayed That The Delay Of 69 Days In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal May Please Be Condoned In The Interest Of Justice & That The Appeal Be Decided On Merits.

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

members. The assessee has not furnished its return of income for the assessment year 2017-18 on or before the due date under Section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer (A.O.) observed that as per the information in the possession of the department, the assessee ... claiming deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) in the return of income on or before the due date provided under Section 139(1) of the Act, the A.O. denied the deduction and made addition of Rs.12,71,701/- in the hands of the assessee. 7. Aggrieved by the assessment

Avani Dipakbhai Shah, Vadodara vs. The ACIT, Circle Intl. Txn., Vadodara

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 707/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Jigar Adhyaru, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rameshwar P Meena, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 153CSection 271F

basis as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act. 6. Further, since the assessee had neither filed her return of income under section 139(1) within the prescribed time nor in response to notice under section 153C, penalty proceedings under section 271F were initiated. The Assessing Officer held that ... during the year, her total income exceeded the basic exemption limit, and she was legally required to furnish a return of income under section 139(1) of the Act. In the absence of any reasonable cause or explanation for failure to do so, the Assessing Officer held that the case

Avani Dipakbhai Shah, Vadodara vs. The ACIT, Circle Intl. Txn., Vadodara

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 706/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Jigar Adhyaru, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rameshwar P Meena, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 153CSection 271F

Avani Dipakbhai Shah, Vadodara vs. The ACIT, Circle Intl. Txn., Vadodara

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 705/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Jigar Adhyaru, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rameshwar P Meena, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 153CSection 271F

Navayuga Engineering Company Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle -1(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1137/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Pawan Kumar ChakrapaniFor Respondent: Dr.Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80

assessee had not claimed any deduction under section 80-IA of the Act in its original return of income filed under section 139(1) of the Act. The claim was made for the first time in the return filed in response to notice under section 153A of the Act. Since

Income-Tax Officer (Exemption)-2(3), Mumbai, Mtnl Building, Cumbala Hill vs. Seth Damji Laxmichand Jain Dharma Sthanak, Chinchpokali

In the result, the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No

ITA 4573/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Ravi GanatraFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan (SR. DR)

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 11(3)Section 11(3)(d)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 250

nominal rates. The assessee also contended that, although Rule 17 requires the filing of Form No. 10 before the due date under Section 139(1), various judicial pronouncements have held that the requirement is satisfied as long as the form is filed before the completion of assessment. However ... cannot be denied merely on the ground that Form 10 has not been submitted within the due date in terms of section 139(1) of the Act, provided the same has been furnished before completion of assessment proceedings. Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Shri Chandraprabhuji Maharaj

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-16, Delhi vs. Kohli Tents Private Limited, Delhi

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2956/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2025AY 2013-14