← 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)

Ghanshyam Arjanbhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(3)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 829/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Dhinal Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Kamal Deep Singh, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 57

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

Moraya Residency B Wing, Pune, Maharashtra vs. The ITO Ward 6(1), Pune, Maharashtra

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

ITA 1831/PUN/2025[2024-2025]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Sept 2025AY 2024-2025

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1831/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2024-25 Moraya Residency B Wing, V The Income Tax Officer, S.No.56/6, Opp. Samarth S Ward-6(1), Pune. Nagar, Near Mumbai Bengaluru Bypass, Vadgaon Budruk, Pune – 411041. Pan: Aaham9853D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri C.H.Naniwadekar & Shri Kiran Sanmane – Ars Revenue By Shri Ambarnath Khule – Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 02/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 25/09/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax Appeal(Nfac) Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2024-25 Dated 09.05.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Under Section 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under :

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण ”एस एम सी” न्यायपीठ पुणेमें। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “SMC” :: PUNE BEFORE DR.DIPAK

The Vadgaon Janata Co Operative Credit Society Limited, Vadgaon vs. Income Tax Officer, Ichalkaranji

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

ITA 1308/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1308/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 The Vadgaon Janata Co- Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Operative Credit Society Ichalkaranji. Limited, Main Road, Peth Vadgaon, Near Abaji Putala, Tal. Hatkanangale, Kolhapur- 416112. Pan : Aabtt2018E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Pramod S. Shingte Revenue By : Shri Amit Bobde Date Of Hearing : 31.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.09.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27.03.2025 Passed U/S 263 Of The It Act By Ld. Pcit, Pune-1 [‘Ld. Pcit’] For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 1, Pune (Hereinafter Referred To As The Pcit) Erred In Passing Order U/S 263 Holding The Assessment Order Dated 19.03.2023 Passed By The Ao, Nfac

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 263Section 80ASection 80PSection 80P(2)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

Puvvada Veera Kumar, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 952/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Respondent: Shri Pranay Sharma
Section 148ASection 40A(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE – PRESIDENT AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL

Ebaotech India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 6359/MUM/2024[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: The Authorities Below Are That The Assessee Is A Subsidiary Company Of The Ebao Group Which Is Globally Diversified In Insurance Software Having Its Headquarters In Shanghai, China & The Operations Of The Group Are Located In Many Countries Including India, Australia, China, Malaysia, Japan & Singapore, With Extensive Coverage In Insurance Software & Technology.

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92BSection 92C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH MUMBAI BEFOREOM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Rishi Parkash, Sonipat vs. Income Tax Officer, Sonipat

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 3230/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 3Section 36Section 36(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

sole reason that the same had been deposited on or before the due date under the corresponding statute than that of filing section 139(1) return. 4. It is in this factual backdrop that the Revenue vehemently argues that such a disallowance of ESI/PF claim which is otherwise held ... assessee beyond the due date prescribed under the relevant Acts, but before the due date of filing of the return of income under Section 139 (1) of the Act of 1961, could be held as the income of the appellant/assessee under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section

Manpowergroup Services India Private Limited, Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2, Delhi, Jhandewalan Extension, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3585/DEL/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Sept 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dharm Veer Singh, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 80JSection 92CSection 92D

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘I’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT, AND SHRI NAVEEN

Shree Shantanu Vidhyapeeth Society, Indore, M.P vs. The Income Tax Officer, NFAC, Delhi

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 640/IND/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

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

Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(2)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(3)

Assessing Officer has relied upon the issue of non-filing of form no. 10B before the due date of section 139(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 electronically. He is absolutely correct. This is one of the conditions to be satisfied by any trust or institution. One has to satisfy

Whole Sale Cloth Merchant Association, Kota vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle Kota, Kota

ITA 962/JPR/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Sept 2025AY 2015-2016
For Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 40

efflux of time or by mandate of the Act. Since, the assessee neither made any such claim in the original retum filed under Section 139(1) of the Act nor in revised return therefore returns filed in response to notice under Section 148 of the Act are not substitute

Whole Sale Cloth Merchant Association, Kota vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle Kota, Kota

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in ITA No

ITA 961/JPR/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Sept 2025AY 2014-2015
For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Ranka, Adv
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 40

efflux of time or by mandate of the Act. Since, the assessee neither made any such claim in the original retum filed under Section 139(1) of the Act nor in revised return therefore returns filed in response to notice under Section 148 of the Act are not substitute

Assistant Commissioner of Income Ta, Jaipur vs. Shri Nath Corporation, Jaipur

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 267/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Sept 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Hemang Gargieya, Adv. &
Section 133ASection 271(1)(c)

assessment order was surrendered by the appellant during the survey proceedings which took place on 09.12.2014. Subsequently the return of income under section 139(1) was filed by the appellant on the date of 15.09.2015 at total income of Rs.3,95,19,200/- and tax payable ... income of Rs.3,95,19,200/- wherein the income as offered in the initial return of income filed under section 139(1) was again repeated i.e. the return of income declared in the return filed under section 153A of the Act and 139(1) of the Act are same

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur vs. Jitendra Kumar Agarwal, Jaipur

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 197/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Hemang Gargieya, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (through V.C.) a
Section 133ASection 271(1)(c)

assessment order was surrendered by the appellant during the survey proceedings which took place on 09.12.2014. Subsequently the return of income under section 139(1) was filed by the appellant on the date of 15.09.2015 at total income of Rs. 3,95,19,200/- and tax payable ... income of Rs. 3,95,19,200/- wherein the income as offered in the initial return of income filed under section 139(1) was again repeated i.e. the return of income declared in the return filed under section 153A of the Act and 139(1) of the Act are same

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Jaipur vs. Royal Jewellers, Jaipur

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 196/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Sept 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Hemang Gargieya, Adv. &
Section 133ASection 271(1)(c)

assessment order was surrendered by the appellant during the survey proceedings which took place on 09.12.2014. Subsequently the return of income under section 139(1) was filed by the appellant on the date of 15.09.2015 at total income of Rs.3,95,19,200/- and tax payable ... income of Rs.3,95,19,200/- wherein the income as offered in the initial return of income filed under section 139(1) was again repeated i.e. the return of income declared in the return filed under section 153A of the Act and 139(1) of the Act are same

Atamjeet Singh Sandhu, Mohali vs. ITO Ward 2(1), Chandigarh

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

ITA 644/CHANDI/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

emphasized that the assessee had in fact deposited the employer’s contribution before the due date for filing the return under section 139(1) and therefore no disallowance could be made in respect thereof. The Ld. AR drew our attention to the detailed chart forming part of Annexure ... towards PF, whereas the balance pertained to the employer’s contribution duly deposited before the due date under section 139(1). In our considered view, this factual aspect goes to the root of the controversy and requires proper verification at the level of the Ld. CIT(A). At the stage

Atamjeet Singh Sandhu, Mohali vs. ITO Ward 2(1), Chandigarh

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

ITA 643/CHANDI/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

emphasized that the assessee had in fact deposited the employer’s contribution before the due date for filing the return under section 139(1) and therefore no disallowance could be made in respect thereof. The Ld. AR drew our attention to the detailed chart forming part of Annexure ... towards PF, whereas the balance pertained to the employer’s contribution duly deposited before the due date under section 139(1). In our considered view, this factual aspect goes to the root of the controversy and requires proper verification at the level of the Ld. CIT(A). At the stage

Atamjeet Singh Sandhu, Mohali vs. ITO Ward 2(1), Chandigarh

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

ITA 642/CHANDI/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Sept 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: the appeal is finally heard or disposed off.

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

emphasized that the assessee had in fact deposited the employer’s contribution before the due date for filing the return under section 139(1) and therefore no disallowance could be made in respect thereof. The Ld. AR drew our attention to the detailed chart forming part of Annexure ... towards PF, whereas the balance pertained to the employer’s contribution duly deposited before the due date under section 139(1). In our considered view, this factual aspect goes to the root of the controversy and requires proper verification at the level of the Ld. CIT(A). At the stage

Magnaquest Technologies Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-5(1), Hyderabad

In the result, ITA.No.736/Hyd

ITA 743/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA, G Srinivasa RaoFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 438Section 43B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD “B” BENCH: HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANJUNATHA

Magnaquest Technologies Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-5(1), Hyderabad

In the result, ITA.No.736/Hyd

ITA 736/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA, G Srinivasa RaoFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 438Section 43B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD “B” BENCH: HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANJUNATHA

Priyanka, New Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 50(3), Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 4665/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Bleasstt. Year : 2017-18 Priyanka Vs. Ito, Ward 50(3), Block 5/25, Old Rajinder Nagar, Delhi New Delhi (Pan: Avnpp5108Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Ms. Meenal Goyal, Ca & Sh. Abhinav Jain, Adv. Respondent By : Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr. Date Of Hearing 04.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24.09.2025 Order This Appeal By The Assessee Is Emanating From The Order Of The Ld. Nfac, Delhi Dated 26.07.2025 On The Solitary Ground Relating To Sustaining The Addition Of Rs. 30,65,000/- Made By The Ao U/S. 69A Of The Act. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2017-18 On 31.10.2017 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs. 3,23,910/-. Subsequently, The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & Notices U/S. 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act Were Issued & Served. The Reasons For Selection Of The Case For Scrutiny Were, “Abnormal Increase In Cash Deposits During Demonetization Period & High Value Receipt Of Cash Shown From Third Parties In Response Data”. The Assessee Was Found To Have Deposited Cash Of Rs. 30,65,000/- During The Demonetization Period In Fy 2016-17 In Her Bank Account Maintained With The Punjab National Bank. The Assessee Claimed That The Said Cash Was Received By Her

For Appellant: Ms. Meenal Goyal, CA & Sh. Abhinav Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH “SMC’’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT Asstt

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Surat vs. Shrinidhi Enterprize, Surat

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are, hereby, dismissed

ITA 914/SRT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.914/Srt/2024 & 797/Srt/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2015-16 & 2016-17 The Acit Shrinidhi Enterprize Central Circle-3 बनाम/ 6/1862, 63, Ground Floor Surat Ghanshyam Bhuvan V/S. Bali Sheri, Mahidharpura Surat – 395 003 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan:Acbfs 6484 R (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, Cit(Dr) Shri Ajay Uke, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/09/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg:

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, CIT(DR)
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 44A

that the assessee is a partnership-firm engaged in the business of real estate. The assessee filed its return of income under Section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) on 29.09.2015 declaring total income at Rs. 7,60,01,880/-. Subsequently, scrutiny