← 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)

Gopal Singh, Gurgaon vs. ITO Ward-1(3), Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 2194/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri V. Rajakumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Mahajan, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 144Section 148

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘A’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI

Yogesh Mathur, Durg vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Bhilai, Durg

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 493/RPR/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur08 Sept 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.493/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2022-23 Shri Yogesh Mathur Mig-694, Behind Pandit Medical, Padmanabhpur, Durg-491 001 (C.G.) Pan: Adrpm8822E .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Bhilai (C.G.)

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Sethia, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 139Section 139(1)Section 139(5)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ “एक-सद"य” मामला रायपुर म" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH

Giriraj Prasad, Kota vs. Income Tax Officer, Bundi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 603/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Sept 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Vinok Kumar Gupta, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148wSection 263Section 54F

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

Bhagvan Sahay Meena, Jaipur vs. ITO WD 7(1), Jaipur

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

ITA 524/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: ShriKapil Banthia, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gorav Avasthi, JCIT-DR
Section 234ASection 271(1)(b)

1 SHRI BHAGWAN SAHAY MEENA VS ITO, WARD 7(1), JAIPUR आयकरअपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुरन्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE

The DCIT, Central Circle-2(2), Ahmedabad vs. Shaligram Infra Projects LLP, Ahmedabad

Appeals are partly allowed

ITA 291/AHD/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocate
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153A

place to mention that the original return of income for A.Y. 2015-16 was filed on 28/09/2015 under section 139(1) declaring total income at Rs. Nil/- Thereafter, the assessment order was passed on 28-11-2017 determining total income at Rs.Nil. The DCIT, Cent.Cir.Vs.Shaligram Infra Projects LLP (6 Appeals ... Income Tax-3, Ahmedabad, the assessments were framed by Central Circle-2(2), Anmedabad. 15.2 The assessee had originally filed its returns under section 139(1) declaring total income of Rs.1,74,14,770 for A.Y. 2017-18 and Rs.4,73,08,150 for A.Y. 2018-19. Consequent to notice

Shaligram Infra Projects LLP ( Ltd. Liability Partnership), Ahmedabad vs. The JCIT (OSD), Central Circle-2(2), Ahmedabad

Appeals are partly allowed

ITA 233/AHD/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarit(Ss)A No.167/Ahd/2021 Asstt.Year : 2017-18 & Asst.Year : 2018-19 Shaligram Infra Projects Llp Vs. The Jcit (Osd) 4Th Floor, Office No.401-402 Central Cir.2(2) B/H. Dishman House Ahmedabad. Opp: Sankalp Grace Ii, Ambli Ahmedabad. Pan: Acpfs 7047 A It(Ss)A No.194,195 & 196/Ahd/2021 Asstt.Year : 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 & Asst.Year : 2018-19 The Jcit (Osd) Vs. Shaligram Infra Projects Llp Central Cir.2(2) 4Th Floor, Office No.401-402 Ahmedabad. B/H. Dishman House Opp: Sankalp Grace Ii, Ambli Ahmedabad.

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153A

place to mention that the original return of income for A.Y. 2015-16 was filed on 28/09/2015 under section 139(1) declaring total income at Rs. Nil/- Thereafter, the assessment order was passed on 28-11-2017 determining total income at Rs.Nil. The DCIT, Cent.Cir.Vs.Shaligram Infra Projects LLP (6 Appeals ... Income Tax-3, Ahmedabad, the assessments were framed by Central Circle-2(2), Ahmedabad. 15.2 The assessee had originally filed its returns under section 139(1) declaring total income of Rs.1,74,14,770 for A.Y. 2017–18 and Rs.4,73,08,150 for A.Y. 2018–19. Consequent to notice

Tejashree Atul Patil, Pune vs. Pr.CIT - 2, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 927/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri C.V.DeshpandeFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 54F

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

Mrs. Meher Pheroz Pudumjee, Pune vs. ACIT Circle 5, Pune

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

ITA 638/PUN/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri C. N. NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250

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

Avanasiyappan Eswaran, Tiruppur vs. ITO, Ward 1(2), Tiruppur

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

ITA 1666/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramachandran, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 50CSection 54FSection 54F(4)

admitted that they did not deposit the unspent  capital gains in a CGAS account before the due date for filing the return under Section 139(1). • Instead, the appellant claims to have directly utilized the funds for house construction, which is argued to be substantive compliance. • However, substantive compliance cannot ... appellant has failed to comply with the mandatory requirement of depositing unspent capital gains in CGAS before the due date under Section 139(1). • The argument of "substantial compliance" cannot override the clear statutory requirement of Section 54F(4). • Accordingly, the AO has rightly disallowed the claim of exemption under

Ganesh Polychem Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-3(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2145/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Parekh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 132Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 250

subject assessment years, it is an undisputed position that the pending assessment before the Assessing Officer consequent to return filed under Section 139(1) of the Act for the subject Assessment years had abated. This was on account of the search and as provided in second proviso to Section 153A ... Therefore, the provisions of the Act which would be otherwise applicable in case of return filed in the regular course under Section 139(1) of the Act would also continue to apply in case of return filed under Section153A of the Act and the case laws on the provision

Assistant Commissoner of Income Tax-Circle-3.3.1, Mumbai vs. Jamnagar Utilities Power Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4766/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal / Shri Nimesh Vora /For Respondent: Shri Ashish Heliwal (CIT DR)
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80Section 80I

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Anjan Dasgupta, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Guntur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 218/VIZ/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam04 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 218/Viz/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Anjan Dasgupta, Vs. Dcit, Gurgaon. Circle-1(1), Pan: Afspd0589G Guntur. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Nitin Gulati, Advocate ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

For Appellant: Sri Nitin Gulati, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 246A(1)(a)Section 249(2)

आयकर अपील"यअ"धकरण, "वशाखापटणम पीठ, "वशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM "ी दु"वू" आर एल

Yajuvendra Arjunbhai Dodiya, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(3)(5), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 428/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Smt. Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.428/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19 Yajuvendra Arjunbhai Dodiya The Ito बनाम/ 34, Parimal Park, Iocl Ward-3(3)(5) V/S. Colony Road Ahmedabad – 380 051 Ahmedabad – 382 150 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Agapd 6830 B (अपीलाथ)/ Appellant) (*+ यथ)/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rohan Thakkar, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ravindra, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 04/09/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 28/12/2024 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-2019. 2. The Assessee, In This Appeal, Has Agitated Against The Action Of The Ld.Cit(A) In Confirming The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Of Rs.39,95,720/- Being The Amount Of Commission Received By The Assessee From Tirth Agro Technology Pvt.Ltd. As Reflected In Form 26-As. The Ao Further Yajuvendra Arjunbhai Dodiya Vs. Ito Asst. Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Thakkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ravindra, Sr.DR
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 250

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद "ायपीठ “सी“, अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD "ी संजय गग", "ाियक सद

Bhel Lcc Society Ltd, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-8(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 732/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.732/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Bhel Lcc Society Ltd Vs. Dy.Cit Hyderabad Circle 8(1) Pan:Aaatb6430D Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Ca Sri Sai Keerthana राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 01/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 04/09/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothis Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27/02/2025 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, Arising From The Penalty Order Passed U/S 270A Of The I.T. Act For The A.Y.2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: CA Sri Sai KeerthanaFor Respondent: : Shri Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr.AR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 270ASection 36

ITA No 732 of 2025 BHEL LCC SOCIETY Ltd आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX

K 0716 Rakkiapalayam Pacc, Tirupur vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(4) Tirupur, Tirupur

ITA 1820/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon'Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon'Ble Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1820/Chny/2025

Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'डी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'D' BENCH: CHENNAI माननीय श्री मनु कुमार गिरि

Kalyanasundaram Ranjithkumar, Thiruvarur vs. ITO, Ncw-22(6), Tambaram

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

ITA 1622/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1622/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 Kalyanasundaram Ranjithkumar, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 2/46A, Keela Padugai Po, Non Corporate Ward 22(6), Thiruvarur 610 109. Tambaram. [Pan:Aimpr1914L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Girish Kumar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. V. Aswathy, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 01.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04.09.2025 आदेश /O R D E R This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 06.11.2023 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 489 Days. The Assessee Filed Petition For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons In Support Of An Affidavit. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Affidavit, I Find The Reasons Stated By The Assessee Are Bonafide, Which 2

For Appellant: Shri Girish Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. V. Aswathy, JCIT
Section 10Section 17(3)Section 89

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’बी’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B SMC’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एस.एस. िव

K.1316 Muthur Primary Agricultural Co-Op Credit Society Limited, Tirupur vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(4) Tirupur, Tirupur

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

ITA 1497/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Ms. A. Vijayalakshmi, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 80ASection 80P

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी एबी टी. वक", "ाियक

Shantha Alias Shanthamma, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(4), Bangalore

ITA 465/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Deepak, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Murali Mohan M, CIT (DR)
Section 143(2)Section 153C

merit before us submitted that the assessee, had duly filed her return of income for Assessment Year (AY) 2020-21 under section 139(1) of the Act, within the prescribed time limit. The CPC also processed the return under section 143(1) of the Act, and the intimation to that

Razaq Liyakhath Ali, Channagiri vs. ITO-Ward-2(1) Davanagere, Davanagere

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1339/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2017-18 Shri. Razaq Liyakhath Ali, Vs. Ito, Kouzer Masjid Circle Fort Road, Ward – 2(1), Channagiri, Davangere. Davangere – 577 213. Pan : Acepl 3149 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Sachin, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Subramanian S, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 01.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.09.2025

For Appellant: Shri. Sachin, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 148Section 271BSection 273BSection 44A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K

Akry Organics Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Central Circle 1(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, we allow the claim of the assessee for deduction under section 80-IA(4) to the extent of ₹17,40,75,413/-, as made in the revised return of income

ITA 3014/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 115JSection 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 80

under section 80-IA shall be admissible unless the assessee furnishes its return of income on or before the due date specified under section 139(1). He also referred to section 80-IA(7), which prescribes filing of the audit report in the prescribed form. In his view, since ... revised return 6 Akry Organics Pvt.Ltd., of income, the assessee cannot be permitted to substitute the original return of income filed under section 139(1). Therefore, claiming benefit under section 108(8) and furnishing the declaration as required under section 10B(8) in the revised return of income which