← 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)

Commando Muscle Power Private Limited, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-13(1), Delhi

ITA 5308/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 5308/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2022-23 Ita No. 5309/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2023-24 Commando Muscle Power Pvt. Ltd. Vs Acit, Rz-82B, Dichan Kalan Road, Laxmi Circle-13(1), Vihar, New Delhi-110043 New Delhi-110043 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aafck4749J Assessee By: None Revenue By : Ms. Ambika Agarwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 08.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 08.10.2025 Order These Assessee’S Twin Appeals In Ita Nos. 5308 & 5309/Del/2025 For Assessment Years 2022-23 & 2023-24, Arise Against The Addl./Jcit(A)-1, Ludhiana’S Din & Order No. Itba/Apl/S/250/2025-26/1079056744(1) & 1079059268(1) Both Dated 30.07.2025, In Proceedings U/S 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”), Respectively.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Ambika Agarwal, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)

against the assessee that the above contributions ought to be deposited within the due date in the statute then that of filing section 139(1) return. She further quotes Woodland (Aero Club) Private Limited Vs. ACIT (2025) 178 taxmann.com 207 (Del.) that hon’ble jurisdictional high court has further held

Shri Malkiat Singh, Delhi vs. CIT(Appeal), Delhi

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 4366/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhshri Malkiat Singh, Vs.Ito, Ward 45(1), Wz 46/3B, Krishna Puri, New Delhi Gali No. 1, Tilak Nagar, Delhi – 110 018 (Pan:Bsrps2158H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. P.K. Bansal, Adv. & Sh. Tarun Sharma, Ca Respondent By : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 08.10.2025 Order

For Appellant: Sh. P.K. Bansal, Adv. & Sh. Tarun Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Section 1Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 149(1)(a)Section 149(1)(b)Section 194C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT Shri Malkiat Singh

Jagdish Solanki, Jhabua vs. Income Tax Officer Jhabua, Jhabua

ITA 169/IND/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore07 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, इंदौर न्यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT

Saroj Gupta, Nalagarh, Himachal Pradesh vs. ACIT (Central Circle), Shimla, Himachal Pradesh

The appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 367/CHANDI/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.367/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Smt. Saroj Gupta Acit (Central Circle) M/S Aakash Hospital & Diagnostic बनाम/ Vs. Railway Board Building Main Bazar, Nalagarh (Hp) -174101 The Mall, Shimla (Hp) 171003 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Ahvpg-9358-F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl.Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25-09-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 07/10/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2019-20 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Gurgaon [Cit(A)] Dated 27-01-2025 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessingofficer [Ao] U/S. 143(3) Of The Act On 26-09-2021. The Sole Grievance Of The Assessee Is Confirmation Of Twin Additions Of Rs.41.94 Lacs & Addition Of Rs.50 Lacs. Having Heard Rival Submissions & Upon Perusal Of Case Records, The Appeal Is Disposed-Off As Under.

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl.CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 133A(1)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, CHANDIGARH PHYSICAL HEARING BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JM AND

Chiloda Seva Sahakari Mandali Limited, Gandhinagar vs. The ITO, Ward-1 (Previously Ward-5), Gandhinagar

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

ITA 837/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Rameshchandra B. Patel, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Kamal Deep Singh, Sr. D.R
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 80ASection 80A(5)Section 80PSection 80P(2)

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

Bidyut Prakas Bhattacharya, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 52(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2016/KOL/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Oct 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 250Section 90

provides Form 67 should be filed on or before the due date of filing of return of income as prescribed under section 139(1). However, the Rule nowhere provides that if the said Form 67 is not filed within the above stated time frame, the relief as sought ... provided that the foreign tax credit would not be allowed if the assessee does not file Form 67 within the due date under section 139(1). In the instant case, the assessee had filed Form 67 after due date of filing of return of income. Therefore, foreign tax credit cannot

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Madurai vs. Ramasubbu Minnalkodi, Tirunelveli

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1632/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, J.C.I.TFor Respondent: Shri. R. Venkata Raman, C.A
Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI sh va we fees te, aie Was Ue Ft US. SR

Arrow Electronics India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 989/BANG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Padamchand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Shivanand Kalakeri, D.R
Section 115BSection 115JSection 139Section 139(1)Section 140BSection 140B(3)(ii)Section 143(1)Section 250

exercise the option in the manner provided by Rule 21AE and in the form 10IC on or before the due date specified by section 139(1) of the Act for the previous year relevant to the assessment year on or after first day of April, 2020. It also provides that

Arrow Electronics India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 988/BANG/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Padamchand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Shivanand Kalakeri, D.R
Section 115BSection 115JSection 139Section 139(1)Section 140BSection 140B(3)(ii)Section 143(1)Section 250

exercise the option in the manner provided by Rule 21AE and in the form 10IC on or before the due date specified by section 139(1) of the Act for the previous year relevant to the assessment year on or after first day of April, 2020. It also provides that

Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1, Raichur vs. Maralbid Padmavathi, Raichur

In the result, appeal filed by theRevenue is dismissed

ITA 1006/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri.Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2016-17 Ito, Vs. Maralbid Padmavathi, Ward – 1, 4-4-145, Zahirabad Raichur, Raichur. Raichur – 584 101, Karnataka. Pan :Anhpp 8615 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Narendra Sharma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Shankar Ganesh D, Addl. Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 12.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.10.2025

For Appellant: Shri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Shankar Ganesh D, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(b)

conceal these transactions. Even she had capital gain. She ought to have shown the same in the return of income filed under section 139(1) of the Act. The claim that assessee is eligible for deduction under section 54 of the Act is also not supported by any evidence. Though

Damodar Reddy Marupuru, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 520/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Sri V. Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Mr. Nabeel Saad, D.R
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69Section 69A

ITA No.520/Bang/2025 Damodar Reddy Marupuru, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT

B Y L Nair Charitable Hospital Poor Patients Fund, Mumbai vs. Exem. Ward 1(1), Mumbai

In the result, subject to verification, the appeal of the

ITA 1568/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Dani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui,(Sr. DR)
Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250

although the assessee contented before him that it had submitted that the original return of income for the year was uploaded under section 139(1) of the Page 4 ITA No. 1568/Mum/2025 A.Y. 2018-19 BY L Nair Charitable Hospital Poor Patients Fund Act on 31.10.2018 as could be seen ... Return of Income by about 4 minutes 55 seconds after processing of Return uploaded on due date i.e. 31st Oct 2018 under Section 139(1) of the Act and same date is also shown on the Verification Part of Original Return of Income. According to the assessee, the difference

Takdir Traders, Rajkot vs. The PCIT-1, Rajkot

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

ITA 383/RJT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot01 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri D. M. Rindani, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT DR
Section 147Section 263

return of income on 14.04.2021 vide acknowledgement no: 341229551140421 with the same income returned as shown in the original return filed earlier under section 139(1) of the Act. Further, the assessee has made his submissions in response to the notice issued. The details called for in connection with

Takdir Traders, Rajkot vs. The PCIT-1, Rajkot

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

ITA 380/RJT/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot01 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri D. M. Rindani, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT DR
Section 147Section 263

return of income on 14.04.2021 vide acknowledgement no: 341229551140421 with the same income returned as shown in the original return filed earlier under section 139(1) of the Act. Further, the assessee has made his submissions in response to the notice issued. The details called for in connection with

Takdir Traders, Rajkot vs. The PCIT-1, Rajkot

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

ITA 378/RJT/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot01 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri D. M. Rindani, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT DR
Section 147Section 263

return of income on 14.04.2021 vide acknowledgement no: 341229551140421 with the same income returned as shown in the original return filed earlier under section 139(1) of the Act. Further, the assessee has made his submissions in response to the notice issued. The details called for in connection with

Nimbeshwar Gudadram Desai, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-3(1)(1) (Previously Circle-3(3)), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1436/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 194ASection 36(1)Section 40

paid within the stipulated due date. The assessee submitted that the contribution had been paid before the due date for filing return under section 139(1) of the Act. However, the Assessing Officer held that as per section 36(1)(va) read with section 2(24)(x), employees’ contribution must ... date as prescribed under section 36(1)(va). The assessee argued that the payment was made before filing the return under section 139(1) and therefore allowable. CIT(Appeals), however, agreed with the Assessing Officer, noting that specific provisions of section 36(1)(va) prevailed over section 43B, and also

Shri Sanjay Gordhandas Vaja, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, International Taxation, Gandhidham-Kutch

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 89/RJT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.89/Rjt/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Sanjay Gordhandas Vaja Income Tax Officer Int. 202, Harmony Heights, Capital Road, बनाम Tax), Gandhidham, Income- Science City, Ahmedabad-380 060 Tax Office, Amruta Estate /Vs. Building, Nr. Girnar Cinema, M.G. Road, Rajkot-360 001 "थायीलेखासं /.जीआइआरसं . / Pan/Gir No.: Ahtpv 3289 L (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Aseem Takkar, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 31/07/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30/09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2018-19, Is Directed Against The Final Order Passed By The Assessing Officer, (After Incorporating Findings Of Dispute Resolution Panel-2 Mumbai, Dated 29.12.2023), Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) .

For Appellant: Shri Aseem Takkar, Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 144CSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 68Section 69

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,राजकोट "यायपीठ,राजकोट। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN

Nimmana Narasimharao, Eluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Eluru

ITA 50/VIZ/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Us:

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 155BSection 69A

High Court answered the aforesaid issue, and held, that the “return of income” filed by the assessee beyond the period stipulated under Section 139(1) or Section 139(4) or Section 142(1) or Section 148 can also be accepted and acted upon provided further proceedings in relation to such

Sri Ksheera Ramalingeswara Swamy Temple, Palakol vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemptions), Rajahmundry

ITA 199/VIZ/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.199/Viz/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Sri Ksheera Ramalingeswara Vs. Income Tax Officer Swamy Temple, (Exemptions), Palakol. Rajahmundry. Pan: Aakas5615E (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: 24/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 30/09/2025 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 15/05/2023, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “Act”), Dated 28/12/2019 For A.Y. 2017-18. 2 I Sri Ksheera Ramalingeswara Swamy Temple Vs. Ito (Exemptions)

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144

High Court answered the aforesaid issue, and held, that the “return of income” filed by the assessee beyond the period stipulated under Section 139(1) or Section 139(4) or Section 142(1) or Section 148 can also be accepted and acted upon provided further proceedings in relation to such

Shri Guptnath Bal Shikshan Samiti Machalpur, Machalpur vs. ITO Ward Rajgarh, Rajgarh

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in

ITA 313/IND/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 10Section 131Section 139Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 80A

return of income but the assessee has not followed the same. The AO also relied upon statutory provisions of sixth proviso to section 139(1) and section 80AC to conclude that if the return of income is not filed, the assessee is not entitled to exemption or deduction under ... reading as under: Page 3 of 13 Shri Guptnath Bal Shikshan Samiti Machalpur ITA No. 313/Ind/2025 - AY 2017-18 6th proviso to section 139(1): “Provided also that every person, being an individual or a Hindu undivided family or an association of persons or a body of individuals, whether incorporated