← 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)

Sri S L Dugar Charitable Trust, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 1(3), Exempt, Kolkata

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

ITA 1006/KOL/2025[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Aug 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘D’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA

Shri Rajarajan Nageshwar Rao, Kanchipuram vs. ITO, Ncw-22(6), Chennai

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

ITA 1746/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Ms. Sonali, Advocate &For Respondent: Smt. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 90

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

Kalyanasundaravalli Premanandhan, Chennai vs. ITO, Non Corp. Ward 8(2) Che, Chennai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1051/CHNY/2025[2017 - 2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Aug 2025

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1051/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. Kalyanasundaravalli Premanandhan, The Ito, 52/A1, Amaravathy Nagar, Non-Corporate Ward-8(2), Chennai-600 106. Chennai.

For Appellant: Mr.J. Saravanan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 69A

income from business, profession, or other speculative activity. The Appellant filed her return of income for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2017-18 under section 139(1) of the Act on 25.06.2018, declaring a total income of ₹5,71,350/-. The Kalyanasundaravalli Premanandhan :: 3 :: return was selected for scrutiny under CASS

Karuppiah J, Ariyalur vs. ACIT, CC-2(3), Chennai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2244/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:2244/Chny/2024 धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Karuppiah J, Acit, No. 2/76, Mariyamman Koil Street, Vs. Central Circle -2(3), Parathur, Kilakavattankurichi, Chennai. Ariyalur – 621 715. Tamil Nadu. [Pan:Eospk-6816-L] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. K.B. Muralidharan, C AFor Respondent: Shri. Kumar Chandan, J.C.I.T
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143Section 44A

.आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, ‘ए’ न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI श्री जॉजज जॉजज के, उपाध्यक्ष

Mr. Dilip Marutirao Kalyankar, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer International Taxation Ward 3(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed as indicated above

ITA 983/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Girish Agrawal, Am Dilip Marutirao Kalyankar Ito, International Taxation – C/O. Umesh Kalyankar, 2F-1501, 3(1)(1) Room No. 608, 6Th Floor, Sapphire Lakeside Chs, Vs. Off Jvlr, Next To Union Of India Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C-43, Bldg., Powai, Mumbai-400 072 G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 051 Pan/Gir No. Ahopk 3818 M (Appellant) : (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal &For Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar (Sr. DR)
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “ I ” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VP AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, AM Dilip

C L Traders, Bikaner vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Bikaner

In the result, the appeal filed by thassessee bearing

ITA 381/JODH/2025[2021-22]Status: FixedITAT Jodhpur22 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon’Ble

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250

return in pursuance to notice under section 142(1) of the Act issued on 27/12/2017. The assessee failed to submit the return under section 139(1) of the Act for the impugned assessment year. The assessee declared total income of Rs.8,70,900/- in relation to turnover of Rs.5

Shri Gulzar Ahmad Dar, Anantnag vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Srinagar

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

ITA 530/ASR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Udayan Das Gupta & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2016-17]

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 253Section 44A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, ‘DB’: AMRITSAR BEFORE SHRI UDAYAN DAS GUPTA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BRAJESH

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Vijayawada vs. Eswara Prasad Nadipalli, Vijayawada

In the result appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 99/VIZ/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam22 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 270A

also initiated penalty proceedings under section 270A of the Act citing that assessee has not voluntarily has filed return of income under section 139(1) of the Act but has only filed in response to notice under section 148 of the Act and hence i.e., under reporting of income attracting ... Income Tax Act, 1961, as the penalty levied is justified when the assessee failed to file the return of income under section 139(1) of the L.T.Act, 1961 leading to the escapement of income. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in ignoring the fact that the return of income

Satya Venkata Krishna Ravi Prasad Koduri, Rajahmundry vs. ACIT, Circle - 1, Rajahmundry

ITA 294/VIZ/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam22 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon'Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon'Bleआईटीए. नं. / Ita Nos. 290 & 291/Viz/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/ Assessment Years:2018-19 & 2019-20) Veera Venkata Ramakrishna Mohana Rao Koduri Flat No. 201, Sri Towers Nh-16 Venkateswara Nagar Syamalanagar East Godavari District - 533103 Andhra Pradesh V. Acit - Circle – 1 Ayakkar Bhawan Veerabadhrapuram Rajahmundry – 533105 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Afrpk0888C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) आईटीए. नं. / Ita Nos. 293 & 294/Viz/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष/ Assessment Years:2018-19 & 2019-20) Satya Venkata Krishna Ravi Prasad Koduri 81-10-3/6, Venkateswaranagar Near Ima Halla, Danavaipeta East Godavari District Andhra Pradesh V. Acit - Circle – 1 Ayakkar Bhawan Veerabadhrapuram Rajahmundry - 533105 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Afrpk0889D] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) करदाता का प्रतिनिधित्व/ Assessee Represented By राजस्व का प्रतिनिधित्व/ Department Represented By सुनवाई समाप्त होने की तिथि/ Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement Smt Hemalatha K, Ca Shri Badicala Yadagiri, Cit(Dr) 05.08.2025 22.08.2025

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 263Section 270A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, विशाखापटणम पीठ, विशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM “DIVISION” BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM (HYBRID HEARING) श्री रवीश

Satya Venkata Krishna Ravi Prasad Koduri, East Godhavari vs. ACIT, Circle - 1, Rajahmundry

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 293/VIZ/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam22 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 263Section 270A

decisions relied on by the Ld.AR. The contention of the Ld.Pr.CIT is that the assessee did not file his return of income under section 139(1) of the Act whereas subsequently filed the return of income for the first time in response to notice issued under section 153C ... interest of the revenue. It is an undisputed fact that the assessee has not filed his return of income voluntarily under section 139(1) of the Act but filed his return of income in response to notice issued under section 153C of the Act, consequent to search and survey proceedings

Veera Venkata Ramakrishna Mohan Rao Koduri, East Godhavari vs. ACIT, Cirlce - 1, Rajahmundry

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 291/VIZ/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam22 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआईटीए. नं. / Ita Nos. 290 & 291/Viz/2025 निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years:2018-19 & 2019-20) Veera Venkata Ramakrishna V. Acit – Circle – 1 Mohana Rao Koduri Ayakkar Bhawan Flat No. 201, Sri Towers Nh-16 Veerabadhrapuram Venkateswara Nagar Rajahmundry – 533105 Syamalanagar Andhra Pradesh East Godavari District - 533103 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Afrpk0888C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आईटीए. नं. / Ita Nos. 293 & 294/Viz/2025 निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Years:2018-19 & 2019-20) Satya Venkata Krishna Ravi V. Acit – Circle – 1 Prasad Koduri Ayakkar Bhawan 81-10-3/6, Venkateswaranagar Veerabadhrapuram Near Ima Halla, Danavaipeta Rajahmundry – 533105 East Godavari District Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Afrpk0889D] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Smt Hemalatha K, Ca राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Shri Badicala Yadagiri, Cit(Dr)

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153Section 153CSection 263Section 270A

decisions relied on by the Ld.AR. The contention of the Ld.Pr.CIT is that the assessee did not file his return of income under section 139(1) of the Act whereas subsequently filed the return of income for the first time in response to notice issued under section 153C ... interest of the revenue. It is an undisputed fact that the assessee has not filed his return of income voluntarily under section 139(1) of the Act but filed his return of income in response to notice issued under section 153C of the Act, consequent to search and survey proceedings

Veera Venkata Ramakrishna Mohana Rao Koduri, Rajahmundry vs. ACIT, Circle - 1, Rajahmundry

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 290/VIZ/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam22 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआईटीए. नं. / Ita Nos. 290 & 291/Viz/2025 निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years:2018-19 & 2019-20) Veera Venkata Ramakrishna V. Acit – Circle – 1 Mohana Rao Koduri Ayakkar Bhawan Flat No. 201, Sri Towers Nh-16 Veerabadhrapuram Venkateswara Nagar Rajahmundry – 533105 Syamalanagar Andhra Pradesh East Godavari District - 533103 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Afrpk0888C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आईटीए. नं. / Ita Nos. 293 & 294/Viz/2025 निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Years:2018-19 & 2019-20) Satya Venkata Krishna Ravi V. Acit – Circle – 1 Prasad Koduri Ayakkar Bhawan 81-10-3/6, Venkateswaranagar Veerabadhrapuram Near Ima Halla, Danavaipeta Rajahmundry – 533105 East Godavari District Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Afrpk0889D] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Smt Hemalatha K, Ca राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Shri Badicala Yadagiri, Cit(Dr)

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153Section 153CSection 263Section 270A

decisions relied on by the Ld.AR. The contention of the Ld.Pr.CIT is that the assessee did not file his return of income under section 139(1) of the Act whereas subsequently filed the return of income for the first time in response to notice issued under section 153C ... interest of the revenue. It is an undisputed fact that the assessee has not filed his return of income voluntarily under section 139(1) of the Act but filed his return of income in response to notice issued under section 153C of the Act, consequent to search and survey proceedings

Viswa Veda Parayana Brindam, Hyderabad vs. CIT(Exemption), Hyderabad

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

ITA 977/HYD/2025[2025-2026]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Aug 2025AY 2025-2026

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: CA, K. Surya BhagwanFor Respondent: MS. U. Mini Chandran, CIT-DR
Section 12A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD “A” BENCH: HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI MANJUNATHA G, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD

Greenzen Bio Pvt. Ltd., Siliguri vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru, Kolkata

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1101/KOL/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Aug 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 80Section 80ASection 80ISection 80J

80JJAA claimed by the appellant. The appellant failed to furnish its original return of income within the prescribed time limit under section 139(1) of the Act. A return of income filed under Section 139(4) could not be said to be meeting the requirements of Section 139(1 ... context of Section 80AC of the Act, which specifically insists upon the filing of return by the due date prescribed under Section 139(1) for availing the admissible deductions. In the instant case, the appellant had no reasonable & bonafide cause for not filing the return of income within the time

The Musiri Taluk Agricultural Co-Op. Mktg. Society Ltd., Tiruchirappalli vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Trichy

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

ITA 785/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.785/Chny/2025 िनधा9रण वष9 /Assessment Year: 2015-16

For Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jt. CIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी यस यस िव"ने

Hyundai Steel India Pvt. Ltd., Kanchipuram vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai

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

ITA 63/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.63/Chny/2025 िनधा8रण वष8 /Assessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘सी’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी मनु कुमार िग"र

Rengarajan Vivesh, Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward-292), Chennai

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

ITA 1057/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1057/Chny/2025 िनधा$रण वष$ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Rengarajan Vivesh, The Income Tax Officer, Flat No.11, Door No.62, Vs. Corporate Ward-2(2) Akshaya Homes, Gurusamy Street, Chennai. Nolambur, Chennai-600 058. [Pan: Aadpv-3688-E] (अपीलाथ&/Appellant) ('(थ&/Respondent) अपीलाथ& की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. R.S. Hitesh, Advocate '(थ& की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, J.C.I.T. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22.08.2025

For Appellant: Shri. R.S. Hitesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, J.C.I.T
Section 139(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 194CSection 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी मनु कुमार िग"र

Maris Spinners Limited., Bengaluru vs. DCIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result the substantial questions of law are answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue

ITA 945/BANG/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubeyassessment Year :2022-23

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 80I

before the learned CIT(A) and submitted that as per CBDT Circular No.20/2022, the extended due date for filing return of income under section 139(1), explanation (2)(a) of the Act, due date was extended upto 07.11.2022 for filing return of income for certain assessees and Form 10CCB ... claim deduction under section 80IA of the Act which is required to be filed one month prior to the filing of appeal under section 139(1) of the Act. However, the assessee has not filed its return of income. Therefore, the learned CIT(A) has rightly decided the issue

Vishnu Vardhana Ram Yara, Machilipatnam vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 846/BANG/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri. Vishnu Vardhana Ram Yara, AssesseeFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 194ASection 69A

IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI. KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL

Red Hat India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax/ITO/ Circle 15(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2442/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2018-19 Red Hat India Private Limited, Asst. Commissioner Of A-201, Supreme Business Park, Income Tax/Income Tax Officer, Supreme City, Vs. Circle-15(3)(1), Hiranandani Gardens, Mumbai. Powai, Mumbai-400076. Pan : Aabcr7097N (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Ajit Jain, For Revenue : Shri Pankaj Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 13-08-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 22-08-2025 O R D E R Per Amit Shukla, J.M : The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 27/07/2022 Passed By The Acit, Circle 15(3)(1) Mumbai, U/S 144C(13) For The A.Y. 2018-19, In Pursuance To The Directions Issued By The Dispute Resolution Panel-2, Mumbai-2, Dated 15/06/2022 U/S 144C(5).

For Appellant: Shri Ajit JainFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

facts mentioned by the assessee, it had filed its return of income ROI on 29/11/2018, which is within the statutory timelines as per section 139(1) of the Act. However, an interest of Rs. 23,03,438/- has been charged as per the Assessment Order. Given the facts