“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)

Vidhu Gupta, Noida vs. DCIT, Central Circle-8, Delhi

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

ITA 1459/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Sh. Sudhir Kumar & Sh. Manish Agarwal

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 153Section 153CSection 69

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C”, DELHI BEFORE SH. SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. MANISH AGARWAL

Sumit Jindal, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-5, Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 450/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 132(4)Section 153A

date and furnish the audit report by the specified date. The “specified date” is due date for furnishing the return of income under section 139(1). 18. The admitted facts in the instant case is that due date for filing of tax audit report and the income tax return

Sumit Jindal, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-5, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1064/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 132(4)Section 153A

Jhaji Shikshan Samiti, Durg vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax Exemption Circle, Bhopal

The appeal of the assessee is ALLOWED

ITA 476/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur09 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliassessment Year: 2018-19 Jhaiji Shikshan Samiti, Arora Niwas, Ward No. 08, Durg Road, Bemetara, Durg-491335, Chhattisgarh Pan: Aaatj7624B ……….Appellant

For Appellant: Mr Yogesh Sethia [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Ms Manisha Kinnu [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)(b)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 246ASection 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI

Nararshabh Sharma, Pune vs. Assessing Officer, Ward 7(3), Pune, Aayakar Sadan Pune

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

ITA 1530/PUN/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Sept 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad

For Appellant: Shri Rajkumar Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Kumar Kedia-JCIT

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(9)Section 140BSection 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 250Section 80T

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “SMC” BENCH : PUNE BEFORE DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A.No.1530/PUN/2025 (Assessment Year

Yugal Madhukar Khairnar, Satana vs. The Income-Tax Officer, Ward 1, Malegaon

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

ITA 1322/PUN/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1322/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Yugal Madhukar Khairnar, V The Income Tax Officer, Dongrej Virgaon, Satana, S Ward-1, Malegaon. Dist-Nashik, Nashik – 423301. Pan: Anmpk4805E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod S. Shingte – Ar Revenue By Shri Ambarnath Khule - Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 04/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09/09/2025 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.2012-13 Dated 24.03.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under : “1. On The Basis Of The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Assessing Officer Is Not Justified In Making Addition Of Rs. 22,94,000/-

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

heard both the parties and perused the records. As per the assessment order, Assessee had not filed Return of Income for A.Y.2012-13 under section 139(1) of the Act. The Assessing Officer based on the information issued notice u/s.148 of the Act on 22.01.2019 after recording reasons for reopening

Kothari Agritech Pvt. Ltd, Solapur vs. The DCIT, Circle-1, Solapur

In the result, the both appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2455/PUN/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Sept 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 80Section 801ASection 80ISection 80J

section 80ID or section 801E, unless the return of income by the assessee is furnished on or before the due date specified under Section 139(1). Exact wordings of the Act is reproduced here for ready reference: 25. For section 80AC of the Income-tax Act, the following section shall ... claiming carrying forward of losses subsequently would not help the assessee. In the present case, the assessee filed its original return under section 139(1) and not under section 139(3). Therefore, the Revenue is right in submitting that the revised return filed by the assessee under section 139

Kothari Agritech Private Limited, Solapur vs. DCIT Circle-1, Solapur

In the result, the both appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2392/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 80Section 801ASection 80ISection 80J

Aryaki Daw, Kolkata vs. JCIT(A), Noida

ITA 793/KOL/2025[22-23]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Sept 2025

Bench: The Date Of Processing The Intimation U/S.143(1) Of The Act. In My Opinion, The Benefit Cannot Be Denied By The Ao (Cpc) Especially When The Form 10Ie Was Available With The Assessing Officer At The Time Of Assessment. The Issue Is Now Squarely Covered By The Decision Of The Co-Ordinate Bench Of Cochin Bench In The Case Of Jomon Joseph Vs Ito In Ita No.482/Coch/2025 For A.Y. 2021-22 Order Dated 31.7.2025, Wherein, The Co- Ordinate Bench Has Held As Under :

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

admittedly has filed Form 10IE belatedly on 31.1.2022, whereas the due date of efiling Form 10 IE was July 31, 2022 as per section 139(1) of the Act however, the return was processed u/s.143(1) on 15.2.2023 meaning thereby that Form 10 IE was filed much before the date

Naraseepuram Paccs, Coimbatore vs. Non Corp Ward 4(1), Cbe, Coimbatore

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

ITA 1697/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George George Kआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1696 & 1697/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2020-21 M/S. Naraseepuram Paccs, The Income Tax Officer, Poondi Road, Narasipuram B.O, Vs. Non-Corporate Ward 4(1), Narasipuram, Coimbatore Coimbatore – 641 109. Pan: Aaaan 9388H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Sudhakar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Y. Sudarshan, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09.09.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.09.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Two Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Both Dated 26.05.2025 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2017-18 & 2020-21. 2. The Solitary Issue Raised Is Whether The First Appellate Authority (Faa) Is Justified In Confirming The Ao’S Action In Denying The Claim Of Deduction U/S.80P Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Sudhakar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Y. Sudarshan, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ (एस एम सी), "यायपीठ,चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ (SMC) BENCH, CHENNAI

Naraseepuram Paccs, Coimbatore vs. Non Corp Ward 4(1), Cbe, Coimbatore

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

ITA 1696/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Sudhakar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Y. Sudarshan, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ (एस एम सी), "यायपीठ,चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ (SMC) BENCH, CHENNAI

Chinnappan Peter Francis, Kumbakonam vs. ITO, Ward-1, Kumbakonam

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1484/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1484/Chny/2025 धनिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Chinnappan Peter Ito, Francis, Vs. Ward I, No. 113, Kamraj Road, Kumbakonam. Bishops House, Kumbakonam – 612 001. Tamil Nadu. [Pan: Bwspp-2816-G] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) : Mr. Y. Sridhar, F.C.A अपीलाथी की ओर से/ Appellant By प्रत्यथी की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr. R. Raghupathy, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.08.2025 : 09.09.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per S.R.Raghunatha, Am. This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Dated 17.04.2025, Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), Nfac, Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-19 Against The Order U/S.147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) Passed By The Ito (Assessing Officer), Ward I, Thanjavur Dated 30.01.2024. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar For The Assessee Mr.Y.Sridhar, Advocate For The Assessee Has Raised An Additional Ground Relating To Jurisdiction Of Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (‘Jao’) In The Light Of The Cbdt Notification Dated 29.03.2022 & The Decision Of The Hon’Ble Madras High Court In The Case Of Tvs Credit Services Ltd. Vs. Dcit (W.P.No.22402 Of 2024 Dated 24.06.2025). The Ld.Dr, Mr.R.Raghupathy, Addl.Cit, Objected Admission Of Additional Ground Raised By The Assessee.

For Respondent: Mr. R. Raghupathy, Addl.CIT

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण’ ‘ए’ न्यायपीठ चेन्नई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI श्री एबी टी वर्की

M/S. City Union Bank, Kumbakonam vs. PCIT, Madurai

In the result, both the appeals for A

ITA 1479/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1478 & 1479/Chny/2025 धनिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2020-21 & 2021-22 M/S. City Union Bank, Pcit No. 148-149, T.S.R Big Street, Vs. Madurai – 1. Kumbakonam – 621 001. Tamil Nadu. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Mr. S. Ananthan, Ca & Ms. R. Lalitha, Ca प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28.08.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.09.2025

For Appellant: Mr. S. Ananthan, CA and Ms. R. Lalitha, CAFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT

Section 17(2)Section 263Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, ‘ए’ न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI श्री एस एस विश्वनेत्र रवि

M/S. City Union Bank, Kumbakonam vs. PCIT, Madurai

In the result, both the appeals for A

ITA 1478/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

For Appellant: Mr. S. Ananthan, CA and Ms. R. Lalitha, CAFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT

Section 17(2)Section 263Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

Dustven Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1153/BANG/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri B.S Balachandran and Shri Ajith VFor Respondent: Shri Balusamy N, JCIT

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

rejected the plea of the assessee. It was held that filing of Form 3CD alone is not compliance with section 139(1) of the Act. Non-filing of ROI before detection amounted to concealment of income. Accordingly, the explanation was not accepted. Hence, the grounds of appeal were dismissed

Income-Tax Officer-8(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Vibgyor Texotech Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4705/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble ()

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 292B

given under section 22(1)/22(2)/34 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 or which you were requi to furnish under section 139(1) or by a notice given under section 139(1) or by a notice given under sect 139(2)/148 of the Income ... dated reasonable cause failed to furnish it within the time allowed and manner required by the said section 139(1) or by s notice. or have with have without reasonable cause failed to comply with a notice under section 22(4)/23(2) of the Inc Income

Mtitanium Apartments Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy. CIT Circle 1(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4694/MUM/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble () Assessment Year: 2024-2025 Mtitanium Apartments Pvt. Ltd., Dy. Cit-Circle 1(2)(1), 2Nd Floor, Shreeniwas House, Range 412, Aayakar Bhawan, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Fort, Vs. M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400 001. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aafcm 6810 Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Narayn AtalFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)

return for the preceding year had been furnished belatedly on year had been furnished belatedly on 10.11.2023, beyond the due date prescribed under section 139(1). 10.11.2023, beyond the due date prescribed under section 139(1). 10.11.2023, beyond the due date prescribed under section 139(1). 2.1 Before ... return of loss must be furnished within the namely, that a return of loss must be furnished within the time prescribed under section 139(1) to entitle the assessee to carry time prescribed under section 139(1) to entitle the assessee to carry time prescribed under section 139(1

Savannah Lifestyle Private Limited, Mumbai, Maharashtra vs. National Faceless Appellate Centre, New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeals bearing ITA Nos 2672 & 2673/Mum/2025

ITA 2673/MUM/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2025AY 2022-2023

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik (SR DR)

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANIKESH

Savannah Lifestyle Private Limited, Bandra West, Mumbai, Maharashtra vs. National Faceless Appellate Centre, New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeals bearing ITA Nos 2672 & 2673/Mum/2025

ITA 2672/MUM/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik (SR DR)

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANIKESH

Concept Motors (India) Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. Assessing Officer, Circle-4(2), Delhi

ITA 373/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “B”: NEW DELHI BEFORE Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI