← 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)

Meghal Rajeshkumar Thakor, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-6(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2655/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Aseem L. Thakkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Chand Meena, Sr. D.R
Section 148Section 154Section 270ASection 270A(7)

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD Before Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member Assessment Year 2018-19 Meghal

Embassy Property Developments Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Bangalore

ITA 1031/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Ms. Nimashri K.A., A.RFor Respondent: Sri Shivanand H Kalakeri, D.R
Section 201Section 201(1)Section 250Section 40

ITA No.1031/Bang/2025 Embassy Property Developments Private Limited, Bengaluru IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM

Dwarka Cement Works Limited(Converted Into Dwarka Cement Works LLP W.E.F 15-09-2022), Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 6706/MUM/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2026AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Dwarka Cement Works Limited (now converted into Dwarka Cement Works LLP w.e.f. 15.09.2022), filed its return of income for A.Y. 2015–16 under section 139(1) on 29.09.2015 declaring loss of Rs. 1,15,25,958/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and assessment was completed under section

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Cirlce- 5(4), Mumbai vs. Prithvi Realtors and Hotels Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the order of the Ld

ITA 6690/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year : 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of Prithvi Realtors & Hotels Income Tax, Private Limited, Central Circle-5(4), Vs. 3Rd Floor, Dheeraj Arma, Room No. 427, Anant Kanekar Marg, Kautilya Bhawan, Bandra (East), G Block, Bkc, Mumbai-400051. Bandra (E), Pan : Aaccp6911E Mumbai-400051. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : None For Revenue : Shri R.A. Dhyani, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 12-02-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 23-02-2026 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M :

For Appellant: NONEFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 43B

payable to a cooperative bank which is not paid on or before the due date prescribed for filing of return of income under section 139(1) of the Act shall be liable to be disallowed under section 43B of the Act only w.e.f. A.Y 2018-19. I notice that

Ronak Ashok Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 41(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 6639/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarronak Ashok Shah Ito-41(3)(3) 1803, Raj Hans Apt., Kautilya Bhavan, Jitendra Road, Malad (E) Vs. Mumbai Mumbai-400 097 Pan/Gir No. Bdjps 9744 J (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Rajesh Kothari Respondent By : Shri Annavaram Kosuri (Sr. Ar) Date Of Hearing : 18.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.02.2026 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against Order Dated 10.03.2025, Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short), Delhi For The Assessment Year (A.Y. For Short) 2018-19. 2. In Ground No. 1, The Assessee Has Raised Grievance Against The Ex Parte Disposal Of The Appeal By Ld. First Appellate Authority. Whereas, Ground Nos. 2 To 5 Are On The Issue Of Validity Of Reopening Of Assessment. Ground Nos. 6 & 7 Are On The Authority Of The Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (Jao) In Completing The Assessment. Whereas, Ground Nos. 8 To 11 Are On Merits.

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh KothariFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram Kosuri (Sr. AR)
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR

Bada Saab Properties Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 4(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4449/MUM/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2026AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm M/S. Badasaab Properties Pvt. Ltd., Deputy Commissioner Of Income 501 Krystal, 206 Waterfield Road, Tax, Bandra (West) Vs. Circle – 4(1)(1), Maharashtra – 400 050 Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai Pan: Aaacb1642A (Appellant) (Respondent) :

For Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. AR
Section 115BSection 115JSection 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM

Ummeed Foundation, Vadodara vs. The ITO, Ward 3(1)(2), Vadodara

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

ITA 2084/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Tr Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Years: 2020-21

Section 11Section 12ASection 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI TR SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD

Ameenamma Charitble Trust, Anantapur vs. ITO, (Exemption) Ward-Tirupati, Tirupati

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee Trust is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 1841/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1841/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2016-17) Ameenamma Charitable Vs. Income Tax Officer Trust, (Exemption) Ward – Anantapur. Tirupati. Pan: Aaeta7403P (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Ka Sai Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Shri K Vamsi Krishna, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 04/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 20/02/2026 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Trust Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Additional/Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Chennai, Dated 03/10/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward, Tirupati (For Short, “Ao”) Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “The Act”), Dated 14/12/2018 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17. The Assessee Has Assailed The Impugned Order Of The Cit(A) On The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri KA Sai Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Shri K Vamsi Krishna, Sr.AR
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(2)Section 115BSection 12ASection 13(9)Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

Rules, 1962, whereby it was required to file the prescribed Form-10 within the due date specified, i.e., the due date specified in section 139(1) of the Act. However, the AO observed that the assessee Trust had filed the Form-10 on 25/09/2017, which was after the due date ... allowed when any one of the prescribed form or the return of income are filed after the due date specified under section 139(1) of the Act. Accordingly, the AO observed that the Form-10 filed in the case of the present assessee would not be applicable as the same

Gopal Krishnan Gopinath, Chennai vs. Assessing Officer International Taxation, Bsnl Building Greams Road Chennai

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

ITA 3878/CHNY/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Feb 2026AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Manu Kumar Giri

For Appellant: Mr. Balamurugan MFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 89

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण ’सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी इंतूरी रामा

Thippareddy Govindareddy Malli Reddy, Bengaluru vs. DCIT, Central Circle 2(3), Bengaluru

In the result appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 685/BANG/2025[AY 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Feb 2026

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian, Jt.CIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 153Section 153CSection 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL

Shipij Rathore, Indore vs. Income Tax Officer 1(2), Indore

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

ITA 557/IND/2025[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Feb 2026AY 2021-2022

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

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 90

have specifically provided that the FTC would be disallowed if the assessee does not file Form 67 within the due date prescribed under section 139(1) of the Act. It was submitted that that there are many sections in the Act which specifically deny deduction or exemption or relief

Devi Anusuiya Vidya Sansthan, Indore vs. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 472/IND/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

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

Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(2)Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 154

return of income of AY 2020-21 under consideration u/s 139(4). The due date for filing return u/s 139(4A) as per section 139(1) was 15.02.2021 [as extended by Press Release dated 30.12.2020 of Govt. of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue] and the last date (extended ... different reason i.e. the return of income was filed belatedly u% 139(4) on 31.03.2018 whereas the section 139(4A) read with section 139(1) required filing of return by due date which was 07.11.2017. Therefore, the basic and exact controversy in these appeals is whether or not the assessee

Dharmendra Rikhavchand Shah, HUF, Himatnagar vs. NFAC, Delhi Present Huris.the ITO, Ward-1, Himatnagar

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

ITA 2680/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rajenkumar M Vasavda, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151A

allied goods under the name Darshan Tyres & Tools, had originally filed its return of income for the Assessment Year 2016-17 under section 139(1) of the Act on 16.10.2016 declaring a total income of Rs.4,05,580/-. The said return was processed under section 143(1 ... return of income is factually incorrect. It was pointed out that the assessee had duly filed its original return of income under section 139(1) of the Act, which was processed under section 143(1) of the Act, and even the Assessing Officer in the order passed under section 148A

Gujarat State Cooperative Cotton Federation Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT, Ahmedabad -1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 538/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Manish J. Shah &For Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT-D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

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

Rajesh Kumar Agarwal HUF, Muzaffarpur vs. Ac/DCIT Cent Cir Mzf, Muzaffarpur

In the result, the appeals of the revenue as well as that of the

ITA 302/PAT/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Patna18 Feb 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Md. AH Chowdhary, DR
Section 132Section 147

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “PATNA” BENCH, PATNA BEFORE SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, VP AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central Circle), Muzaffarpur vs. Rajesh Kumar Agarwal HUF, Muzaffarpur

In the result, the appeals of the revenue as well as that of the

ITA 290/PAT/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Patna18 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Md. AH Chowdhary, DR
Section 132Section 147

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “PATNA” BENCH, PATNA BEFORE SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, VP AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM

Ashutosh Dubey, Kanjurmarg vs. DCIT Circle-8, Pune

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

ITA 2215/PUN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2215/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2019-20 Ashutosh Dubey, V Income Tax Officer, Tower 8, Flat No.3201, Runwal S Circle-8, Pune. Forest, Lbs Road, Kanjurmarg West, Maharashtra – 400078 Pan: Ajppd0173M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Amar Pandey (Virtual) Revenue By Smt Neha Thakur (Virtual) Date Of Hearing 20/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 18/02/2026

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 246ASection 250Section 270ASection 274(2)Section 5

parties and perused the records. In this case, Assessee is a salaried employee. Assessee had not filed return of income for A.Y.2019-20 under section 139(1) of the Act. The Assessing Officer analysed the 26AS of the Assessee and noted that Assessee had income of Rs.58,39,560/- during ... No.s1646 & 3312 of 2022 vide order dated 31.05.2024. 7. Ld.DR submitted that Assessee had not filed return of income voluntarily under section 139(1) of the Act. Therefore, there is under reporting of income, hence, AO was right in levying penalty under section 270A of the Act. 8. In this

Nmdc Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT Circle 5(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1523/HYD/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Feb 2026AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1523/Hyd./2025 Assessment Year 2024-2025 Nmdc Limited, The Dcit, Hyderabad – 500028. Vs. Circle-5(1), Pan Aaacn7325A Hyderabad. Telangana. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca Darshan Jakharia राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 16.02.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 18.02.2026 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: CA Darshan JakhariaFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)(a)Section 43B

1 ITA.No.1523/Hyd./2025 आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘B’ Bench

Ravi Rishi Educational Society, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad

ITA 1301/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.972 & 973/Hyd/2024

For Appellant: CA P Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 271D

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘B’Bench, Hyderabad BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO

Ravi Rishi Educational Society, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle 2(4), Hyderabad

ITA 1300/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.972 & 973/Hyd/2024

For Appellant: CA P Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 271D

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘B’ Bench, Hyderabad BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO