← 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)

Moulimani Impex Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer- 1(1)(3), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 533/SRT/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Aug 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE MS SUCHITRA RAGHUNATH KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH

Rng Construction Co., Indira Nagar vs. DCIT, DCIT-CPC

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 156/IND/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshirng Construction Co. Dcit बनाम/ 14, Sector-A, Vs. Indira Nagar, Mandideep (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaqfr9084B Assessee By Shri Yashwant Sharma, Ca & Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 28.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29.08.2025

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 145ASection 40Section 43B

आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, इंदौर"ायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND

Shobha Yadav, Chandpura Bachhana, Bilhaur vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), Knp-W

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

ITA 278/LKW/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow29 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2019-20 Shobha Yadav, Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax Chandpura Bachhana, Bilhaur, (Appeals), Kanpur Kanpur Nagar, U.P.-209202 Pan:Auxpy6004H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Shivam Singh Yadav, Adv Revenue By: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 30.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.08.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 28.02.2025, Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee In Limine. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Cit(A)) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Dismissing The Appeal On The Ground Of Delay In Filling Of The Appeal By 33 Days, Without Appreciating The Bona Fide Reasons & Genuine Hardship Faced By The Appellant. 2. That The Learned Cit(A) Failed To Appreciate That The Appellant Is An Illiterate Village Woman With No Access Or Understanding Of Technology & That She Neither Received The Notice Nor The Assessment Order In Physical Form, Leading To Unintentional Delay In Filing The Appeal. 3. That The Learned Cit(A) Failed To Consider That The Appellant'S Cause For Delay Was Neither Deliberate Nor Due To Negligence, But Solely Due To Lack Of Awareness & Therefore Deserved Liberal Construction In The Interest Of Substantial Justice. 4. That The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Holding That The Appellant Did Not Show "Sufficient Cause" For Condonation Of Delay, Despite Her Candid Declaration Of Illiteracy, Lack Of Access To Email & Absence Of Physical Service Of Notices Circumstances Beyond Her Control.

For Appellant: Sh. Shivam Singh Yadav, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, CIT DR
Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 69A

cash of Rs.24,31,165/- in her account maintained with the Bank of Baroda, but had not filed her return of income under section 139(1). Therefore, after following the provisions laid down under section 148A, an order was issued under section 148A(d) and a notice under section

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-5, Kanpur vs. M.K.U Pvt. Ltd., Kanpur

In the result, appeal in ITA No

ITA 509/LKW/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow29 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, CIT DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250

instead filed objections to the same vide his letters. Subsequently though, the assessee filed a letter requesting that the return filed under section 139(1) of the Act be treated as the return filed in compliance to notice under section 148. The ld. AO first proceeded to dispose the objections

Nitin Rajaram Dhane, Satara vs. The DCIT Citrcle, Satara

In the result, for all the reasons discussed, Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2748/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamore

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 90

आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण ”ए” "ायपीठ पुणे म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “A” :: PUNE BEFORE DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT

Karmayogi Sr Paricharak Multistate Coopertive Credit Society Limited, Pandharpur vs. ITO Ward 2, Pandharpur

In the result Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2476/PUN/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamore

Section 10ASection 139Section 139(1)Section 142Section 143(1)Section 250Section 80P

have heard both the parties and perused the records. In this case, the assessee had filed Return of Income on 09/01/2022 under section 139(1) of the Act. The due date of filling Return of Income was 15/03/2022. Thus the Return was filed withing the due date mentioned

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Chennai vs. Kag India Private Limited, Velachery

ITA 632/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.322/Chny/2025, A.Y.: 2014-15 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.323/Chny/2025, A.Y.: 2015-16 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.324/Chny/2025, A.Y.: 2017-18 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.325/Chny/2025, A.Y.: 2018-19 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.321/Chny/2025, A.Y.: 2019-20 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.632/Chny/2025, A.Y.: 2021-22

For Appellant: Mr.Bipin C.N, CIT
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144ASection 153A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण ’सी’ न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI माननीय श्री मनु कुमार गिरि

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Chennai vs. Kag India Private Limited, Chennai

ITA 325/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.322/Chny/2025, A.Y.: 2014-15 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.323/Chny/2025, A.Y.: 2015-16 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.324/Chny/2025, A.Y.: 2017-18 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.325/Chny/2025, A.Y.: 2018-19 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.321/Chny/2025, A.Y.: 2019-20 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.632/Chny/2025, A.Y.: 2021-22

For Appellant: Mr.Bipin C.N, CIT
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144ASection 153A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण ’सी’ न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI माननीय श्री मनु कुमार गिरि

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Kag India Private Limited, Chennai

ITA 324/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.322/Chny/2025, A.Y.: 2014-15 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.323/Chny/2025, A.Y.: 2015-16 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.324/Chny/2025, A.Y.: 2017-18 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.325/Chny/2025, A.Y.: 2018-19 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.321/Chny/2025, A.Y.: 2019-20 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.632/Chny/2025, A.Y.: 2021-22

For Appellant: Mr.Bipin C.N, CIT
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144ASection 153A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण ’सी’ न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI माननीय श्री मनु कुमार गिरि

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Chennai vs. Kag India Private Limited, Chennai

ITA 323/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.322/Chny/2025, A.Y.: 2014-15 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.323/Chny/2025, A.Y.: 2015-16 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.324/Chny/2025, A.Y.: 2017-18 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.325/Chny/2025, A.Y.: 2018-19 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.321/Chny/2025, A.Y.: 2019-20 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.632/Chny/2025, A.Y.: 2021-22

For Appellant: Mr.Bipin C.N, CIT
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144ASection 153A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण ’सी’ न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI माननीय श्री मनु कुमार गिरि

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Chennai vs. Kag India Private Limited, Chennai, Tamilnadu

ITA 322/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.322/Chny/2025, A.Y.: 2014-15 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.323/Chny/2025, A.Y.: 2015-16 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.324/Chny/2025, A.Y.: 2017-18 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.325/Chny/2025, A.Y.: 2018-19 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.321/Chny/2025, A.Y.: 2019-20 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.632/Chny/2025, A.Y.: 2021-22

For Appellant: Mr.Bipin C.N, CIT
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144ASection 153A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण ’सी’ न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI माननीय श्री मनु कुमार गिरि

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Chennai vs. Kag India Private Limited, Chennai

ITA 321/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.322/Chny/2025, A.Y.: 2014-15 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.323/Chny/2025, A.Y.: 2015-16 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.324/Chny/2025, A.Y.: 2017-18 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.325/Chny/2025, A.Y.: 2018-19 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.321/Chny/2025, A.Y.: 2019-20 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.632/Chny/2025, A.Y.: 2021-22

For Appellant: Mr.Bipin C.N, CIT
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144ASection 153A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण ’सी’ न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI माननीय श्री मनु कुमार गिरि

U. Karthiyayini, ITO, Cw 5(1)(I/C), Chennai vs. Peacock Hospitals Pvt Ltd, Tituttani

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

ITA 1749/CHNY/2025[2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Aug 2025

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1749/ Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Y. Sridhar, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Bipin C.N, CIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘सी’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी जॉज" जॉज" के, उपा

Keystone Foundation, Nilgiris vs. ACIT, Exemptions Ward, Coimbatore

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

ITA 1680/CHNY/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Aug 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1680/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2023-24 Keystone Foundation, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of P.B. No. 35, Groves Hill Road, Income Tax, Kotagiri, Nilgiris 643 217. Exemptions Ward, Coimbatore. [Pan:Aaatk0218N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri N. Rajakumar, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 26.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.08.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.05.2025 Passed By The Addl/Jcit(A)-9, Delhi For The Assessment Year 2023-24. 2. The Ld. Ar Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate Submits That The Assessee Raised 9 Grounds Of Appeal Amongst Which, The Only Issue Emanates In Challenging The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Confirming The Disallowance Made On Account Of Non-Filing Of Audit Report In Form 10B In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N. Rajakumar, Addl. CIT
Section 11Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(A)Section 164(2)

Heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. We note that the assessee filed its original return of income under section 139(1) of the Act on 29.11.2023 within the due date [due date for filing – 30.11.2023]. The audit report in Form 10B ought to have been

Hemant Kumar Tiwari, Tiruppur vs. PCIT, Coimbatore

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

ITA 1404/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1404/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Hemant Kumar Tiwari, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 6, Vinayagapuram 1St Street, Circle 1, 12, Royapuram Main Road, Tiruppur. Tiruppur 641 601. [Pan:Abdpt4540J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Anandd Babunath, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 28.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.08.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 21.06.2023 Passed By The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Coimbatore For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act” In Short).

For Appellant: Shri Anandd Babunath, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 10(38)Section 139Section 139(1)Section 144Section 147Section 263

return of income before the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer electronically on 30.09.2013 for the assessment year ("AY") 2013-14, within the due date under section 139 (1) of the IT Act, 1961. 2. That the during the previous year 2012-2013, I sold the equity shares of CCL International Limited

The National Sodality Centre, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Exemption, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4153/MUM/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanthi PatelFor Respondent: Shri. Bhagirath Ramawat (SR
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(6)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K(SMC)” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SMT. RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT

The Nasik St. Xaviers Society, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Exemption Ward 2(4), Mumbai

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms

ITA 1364/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaraassessment Year: 2023-24

For Appellant: Smt. Vasanti Patel, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Ld. D.R
Section 119Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 44A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “B”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI OMKARESHWAR

Kakad House Co Op Housing Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 25(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, grounds of

ITA 1188/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Kakad House Co. Op Housing Society Ito, Ward – 25(1)(1), Mumbai Ltd. Vs Kautilya Bhawan, Bandra, Kakad House, Vithaldas Thakersey Mumbai Marg, New Marine Lines, Mumbai – 400020. [Pan: Aadak4956B] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 254(1)Section 80ASection 80P

revenue supported the order of lower authorities. The ld. Sr. DR submits that assessee has not filed return of income under section 139(1), rather filed under section 139(4). 4. I have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and have gone through the orders of lower authorities

Kn Support Services Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5774/DEL/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalkn Support Services Pvt.Ltd., Dcit, 30Th Floor, M3M International Circle 1(1), Financial Centre, Tower-1, Vs. Gurgaon, Golf Course Extensions Road, Haryana Sector 66, Badshapur, Haryana -122101. Pan-Aajck0720B (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115Section 115BSection 115JSection 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)

company and had filed its return of income for assessment year 2021-22 belatedly on 30-3-2022. The extended due date under section 139(1) of the Act for the year under consideration was 15-3-2022. The assessee in the return of income had opted ... instant case. Form 10 IC was admittedly filed by the assessee on 17-3-2022 which was beyond the extended due date under section 139(1) of the Act. But the return of income was filed belatedly on 30-3-2022 The Learned CPC while processing the return under section

Kworks Technologies Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 5773/DEL/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalkworks Technologies Private Dcit, Limited, 30Th Floor, M3M Circle 1(1), International Financial Centre, Vs. Gurgaon, Tower-1, Golf Course Extensions Haryana Road, Sector 66, Badshapur, Haryana -122101. Pan-Aajck0865H (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115BSection 115JSection 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)

company and had filed its return of income for assessment year 2021-22 belatedly on 30-3-2022. The extended due date under section 139(1) of the Act for the year under consideration was 15-3-2022. The assessee in the return of income had opted ... instant case. Form 10 IC was admittedly filed by the assessee on 17-3-2022 which was beyond the extended due date under section 139(1) of the Act. But the return of income was filed belatedly on 30-3-2022 The Learned CPC while processing the return under section