← 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)

Raghavan, Kanchipuram vs. ITO, Ncc-22(1), Tambaram

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

ITA 1776/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1776/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Raghavan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 3503, Bay View House, Hiraranan, Non Corporate Circle 22(1). 5/63, Omr, Egattur, Thazambur, Tambaram, Chennai. Kanchipuram District, Tamil Nadu. 600 130 [Pan:Ajjpv9178L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Y.Sridhar, F.C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 11.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.10.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 05.06.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Raised 12 Grounds Of Appeal Amongst Which, The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is 2

For Appellant: Shri Y.Sridhar, F.C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 270ASection 270A(1)Section 270A(2)(b)Section 274

short]. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee had not filed return of income under section 139(1) of the Act. As per information available with the Department, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee made time deposits (other than a time deposit made through renewal ... under section 270A(6)(A) of the Act. The assessee, being a resident is under obligation to file his return of income under section 139(1) of the Act. TDS does not exempt filing of tax payable exceeds TDS. She argued that acceptance of returned income does not bar levy

Arham Anmol Projects Private Limited, Village Valshind, Bhiwandi vs. Circle 1 Kalyan, Kalyan, Thane

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is disposed of accordingly in

ITA 4929/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 748

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI. RAJ

ACIT, Circle-3, Thane, Ashar It Park Thane vs. Magic Kraft Private Limited, Vasai East

ITA 4338/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 1ISection 250

filed within prescribed time - It was noted that assessee had filed return on or before due dates specified under section 139(1) - It was CO. 242/Mum/2025. also noted that assessee had specifically stated that they had certain difficulties in uploading form in Income tax portal during Covid Whether since conduct ... Assessee, a domestic company, had filed its return of income on 5-2-2021 i.e. before last date of filling return under section 139(1) - Whether since Form 10-IC was electronically uploaded by assessee on 2-5- 2021 i.e. before cut-off date mentioned in CBDT circular No. 6/2022

ACIT, Circle-3, Thane, Ashar, It Park vs. Magic Kraft Private Limited, Vasai East

ITA 4327/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 1ISection 250

filed within prescribed time - It was noted that assessee had filed return on or before due dates specified under section 139(1) - It was CO. 242/Mum/2025. also noted that assessee had specifically stated that they had certain difficulties in uploading form in Income tax portal during Covid Whether since conduct ... Assessee, a domestic company, had filed its return of income on 5-2-2021 i.e. before last date of filling return under section 139(1) - Whether since Form 10-IC was electronically uploaded by assessee on 2-5- 2021 i.e. before cut-off date mentioned in CBDT circular No. 6/2022

Ankur Foundation, Mumbai vs. ITO (E) 1(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2594/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarankur Foundation Vs. Ito (E)- 1(1) 6Th Floor, Mtnl Tel A-2, Rose Patel B, Exchange Bldg, Cumballa Veronica Road, Bandra Hills, Pedder Road, Mumbai – 400050. Mumbai – 400026 Pan/Gir No. Aaata0836E (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Mr. Tejas (Virtually Appeared) Revenue By Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 11.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 13.10.2025 आदेश / Order Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order 17.02.2025 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’), By The National Faceless Appeal Centre / Cit(A), Mumbai For The Assessment Year 2022- 23. 2. As Per The Facts Of The Case, The Assessee Filed Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration Which Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Act By The Cpc, Wherein A Demand Was Raised By Disallowing Exemption Claimed U/S 11 Of The Act On Account Of The Fact That Assessee’S 12A/80G Registration

Section 11Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H-SMC” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI

Aradhana Co Operative Housing Society Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Ward 20(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1285/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain

Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 246ASection 250Section 80P

claimed under Section 80P, on the ground that the return of income was allegedly filed beyond the prescribed due date under Section 139(1). 1.4 Aggrieved by the adjustments, the appellant filed an appeal before this office under Section 246A, raising three grounds of appeal as provided in Form

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax - 7(1)(1), Mumbai, Maharashtra vs. Master Chain Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai, Maharashtra

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

ITA 5397/MUM/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor a/w Ms. SoumyaFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik (SR DR)
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 250

company engaged in the business of manufacturing and wholesale trading of gold jewellery and ornaments. The assessee filed its return of income under section 139(1) of the Act, declaring a total income of Rs.15,04,83,700/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS. During

Prashant Arvind Tayade, Amravati vs. ITO Ward 5, Amravati

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

ITA 467/NAG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur10 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleprashant Arvind Tayade, Plot No.33, Parakashta Jalpurti Colony, Ymv Road ……………. Appellant Amravati 444604, Maharashtra. Pan–Agtpt6782D V/S Income Tax Officer Ward–5, Ito Building, ……………. Respondent Saturna, Amravati-444607, Maharashtra. Assessee By: Shri.Bhushan Lathiya.A.R. Revenue By :Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri.Bhushan Lathiya.A.RFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr. DR
Section 250Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Prashant Arvind Tayade, Plot

No 368 Kolakaluru Primary Agricultural Co Operative Credit Society Limited, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Tenali

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

ITA 455/VIZ/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam10 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.455/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) No. 368 Kolakaluru Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Primary Agricultural Co- Ward-1, Operative Credit Society Tenali. Limited, Tenali. Pan: Aaban6994Q (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Sri Gvn Hari, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 06/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 10/10/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, Jm : The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee-Society Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Center (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 25/06/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 147 R.W.S 144 R.W.S 144B Of The 2 No. 368 Kolakaluru Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society Limited Vs. Ito

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, िवशाखापटणम पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Visakhapatnam Bench, Visakhapatnam Before Shri Ravish Sood, Judicial Member

Princess Infra & Development LLP, Kota vs. ACIT-Central Circle-Kota, Kota

In the result, both the appeals of the assesseeare allowed for statistical purposes as indicate hereinabove

ITA 859/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Saurav Harsh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR
Section 144Section 153B(1)(b)Section 153CSection 56(2)(X)Section 68

आयकरअपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुरन्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh]U;kf

Princess Infra & Development LLP, Kota vs. ACIT-Central Circle-Kota, Kota

In the result, both the appeals of the assesseeare allowed for statistical purposes as indicate hereinabove

ITA 858/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Saurav Harsh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR
Section 144Section 153B(1)(b)Section 153CSection 56(2)(X)Section 68

आयकरअपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुरन्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh]U;kf

Pramila Agarwal, Jaipur vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-2(5), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 531/JPR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Oct 2025AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gorav Avasthi, JCIT
Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 68

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR डा० एस. सीतालक्ष्मी, न्यायिक

Sincere Architects Engineers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. ACIT, Cirlce-7, Jaipur

In the result the appeal no

ITA 974/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Oct 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Ashish Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 194A

file a return under sub- section (3) within the time permitted and only upon which the same would be treated as return under Section 139(1) of the Act. Counsel for the revenue submitted that when no return in terms of sub-section (3) of Section 139 claiming carry forward

Sincere Architects Engineers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. ACIT, Circle-7, Jaipur

In the result the appeal no

ITA 973/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Oct 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Ashish Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 194A

file a return under sub- section (3) within the time permitted and only upon which the same would be treated as return under Section 139(1) of the Act. Counsel for the revenue submitted that when no return in terms of sub-section (3) of Section 139 claiming carry forward

DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Atul Limited, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1774/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2016-17

Section 271GSection 92CSection 92DSection 92D(3)

contemporaneous and should be latest by the specified date referred to in Section 92F(iv), i.e., due date in Explanation 2 below Section 139(1). Thus, indicating the documentation/information may be floating, transient and changeable. Constant assimilation may be required. Besides, data information can also vary. The tribunal has rightly

Vivekanand Ambadasrao Ghodke, Aurangabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Aurangabad

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

ITA 2011/PUN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Ms. Arrchena ShettyFor Respondent: Shri Harish Bist
Section 10Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 89

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL

Mahatma Phule Gramin Bigarsheti Sahakari Patsanastha Ltd, Maharashtra vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(1), Ward One(One)

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1989/PUN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Harish Bist
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 80ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL

Shahid Jamal Ansari, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Circle-12(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1252/HYD/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Oct 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: the due date of filing return of income under Section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee has filed a petition under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 along with relevant Form No. 67 filed on 21-05-2024, and the A.O. passed the order under Section 154 of the Act, on 10-01-2025 and denied FTC on the ground of delayed filing of Form No. 67 in terms of Rule 128(9) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962.

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154

Income Tax Rules, 1962 was not filed on or before the due date of filing return of income under Section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee has filed a petition under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 along with relevant Form No. 67 filed ... denial of FTC for non-filing of Form No. 67 on or before the due date of filing the return of income under Section 139(1) of the Act, has been considered and held that filing of Form No. 67 is directory in nature and if such form is filed

F.V. 112 the Villupuram District Public Health Department Employees Coop Thrift and Credit Society, Villupuram vs. Income Tax Officer, Villupuram

In the result the appeal is allowed

ITA 2047/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.2047/Chny/2025 िनधा8रण वष8 /Assessment Year: 2019-20 Fv 112 The Villupuram District Public The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Health Department Employees Co-Op. Ward-1, Thrift & Credit Society, 60, Vilupuram. Kandasamy Layout, 1St Street, (K.K. Road), Villupuram 605 602, Viluppuram [Pan: Aaaaf4857B]

For Appellant: Shri G. Reddi Prakash, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)(a)Section 80ASection 80P

section 80AC mandate that no deduction under section 80P shall be allowed unless the return is filed within the due date specified under section 139(1). Section 80AC was introduced to ensure timely compliance with tax filing obligations for claiming deductions under Chapter VI-A. The legislative intent behind this

Ft 92 the Vilupuram and Tindivanam Gov Arts College Teaching and Non-Teaching Staffs Co-Op Society, Vilupuram vs. Income Tax Officer, Vilupuram

In the result the appeal is allowed

ITA 2046/CHNY/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Oct 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.2046/Chny/2025 िनधा8रण वष8 /Assessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri G. Reddi Prakash, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT
Section 119(2)(b)Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 80Section 80ASection 80P

filed its return of income on 30/11/2020. Thus, the return of income has not been filed within the due date as prescribed in section 139(1) of the Act. Accordingly, as per the provisions of section 80AC of the Act, the claim of deduction u/s 80P has been rejected