← 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)

Pooran Singh, Dholpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4, Bharatpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 194/JPR/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention That The Assessee Has Assailed The Appeal In Ita No.

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Pandya, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271F

271F of the Act were initiated upon the assessee on account of non- furnishing of return of income as per the provisions of section 139(1) of the Act for the year under consideration and accordingly was levied for Rs. 5000/- against the assessee. The AO noticed that during

Income Tax Officer- 6(2), Lucknow vs. M/S. Status Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow

ITA 403/LKW/2020[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Lucknow13 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraआयकर अपील सं/ Ita No.403/Lkw/2020 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Income Tax Officer-6(2) 27/2, Raja Ram Mohan Rai Marg, P. K. Complex, 3Rd Floor, Lucknow-226001. V. M/S. Status Vyapaar Pvt Ltd 24, Eldico Greens, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow-226010. Pan:Arvpm1497R अपीलार्थी/(Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी/(Respondent) अपीलार्थी कि और से/Appellant By: Shri Raghunath Mishra, Adv प्रत्यर्थी कि और से /Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) Order Per Anadee Nath Misshra, Am.: This Appeal, By The Revenue, Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-2, Lucknow Dated 24.09.2020, Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2012-13. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “1. Whether On The Facts Of Circumstances Of The Case & In Law. Ld. Cit(A)-2, Lucknow Erred In Restricting The Addition Of Rs.6,34,00,000/- Made By The Ao On Account Of Unexplained Credit U/S 68 Of The Act To Commission Income Calculated At 1% Without Appreciating That The Assessee Had Failed To Furnish Satisfactory Explanation With Regard To Identify Of The Parties, Source & Genuineness Of The Transaction 2. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add Or Amend Any One Or More Of The Grounds Of Appeal As & When Need To Doing So Arises With The Prior Permission Of The Court.” 2. In This Case, Assessment Order Dated 29.12.2019 Was Passed By The Assessing Officer Whereby The Assessee'S Total Income Was Assessed At Rs.6,34,42,150/-. Thereafter, During The Assessment Proceedings, The Assessing Officer Noted That There Were Total Credit Entries Of Rs.9.84 Crores & Matching Debit

For Appellant: Shri Raghunath Mishra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR)
Section 150Section 68

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण 'ए' न्यायपीठ, लखनऊ। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “A”, LUCKNOW श्री कुल भारत, उपाध्यक्ष

Hemlata Harakchand Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-6(1)(4), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 835/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Date of Hearing
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)

Organics Limited, a penny stock company, during the relevant assessment year. However, the assessee had failed to file her return of income under Section 139(1) of the Act. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment and notice under Section 148 of the Act was served upon the assessee

Institute of Defence Studies and Research Foundation (Idsrf), Ahmedabad vs. The ITO Exemption, Ward (1), Ahmedabad.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1047/AHD/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Aug 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Ms. Devina Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri Pratik Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 13Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250

Audit Report, which was submitted on 30.12.2023 instead of the prescribed due date, i.e., one month before the return filing deadline under section 139(1) of the Act. The CIT(Appeals) further noted that no order condoning the delay in filing the audit report was Institute of Defence Studies

Gunapalan Mallinathan, Ranipet vs. ITO, Ward-2, Vellore

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

ITA 665/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 665/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2020-21 Shri Gunapalan Mallinathan, The Income Tax Officer, No.21, Kaviarasu Kannadasan Vs. Ward 2, Street, Vellore. Sriramnagar, Valasaravakkam, Chennai – 600 087. Pan: Adipm 2621A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gowthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.08.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 13.08.2025

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gowthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 250

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

ITO(E)-1(1), Mumbai vs. Basilica of Our Lady of the Mount, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No

ITA 2927/MUM/2025[2023]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Aug 2025

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti PatelFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. Ar
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 11(3)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250

/2025 Basilica of our Lady of the Mount 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed the return under section 139(1) of the Act and the return was processed under section 143(1) of the Act. While processing the return, the Ld.AO rejected the assessee

Aati Pichra Mahila Avam Bujurg Vikash Munch, Faridabad vs. Exemptions Ward Faridabad, Faridabad

ITA 622/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 11Section 139(1)

involving varying sums for the sole reason that it could not file/upload the prescribed 10B tax audit report within “due” date of filing section 139(1) return. The Revenue vehemently argues that the impugned disallowance of section 11 exemption deserves to be upheld as the above compliance is mandatory

Aati Pichra Mahila Avam Bujurg Vikash Munch vs. Exemptions Ward Faridabad, Faridabad

ITA 621/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 11Section 139(1)

involving varying sums for the sole reason that it could not file/upload the prescribed 10B tax audit report within “due” date of filing section 139(1) return. The Revenue vehemently argues that the impugned disallowance of section 11 exemption deserves to be upheld as the above compliance is mandatory

Jatin Arora, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-30(5), New Delhi

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

ITA 1835/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 44ASection 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘C’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH

Thiroor Service Co Operative Bank Limited 4140, Thiroor vs. Income Tax Officer, Thrissur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 191/COCH/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Aug 2025AY 2022-2023

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

case are that the assessee is a cooperative society that filed its return of income for the assessment year 2022–23 under section 139(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on 21.11.2022. The return was selected for scrutiny under CASS and the assessment was completed under section

Valapad Service Co Operative Bank Ltd, Valapad vs. Income Tax Officer, Guruvayur

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 190/COCH/2025[2023-2024]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Aug 2025AY 2023-2024

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

cooperative society. For the Assessment Year 2023–24, the return of income was not filed within the due date as prescribed under section 139(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Consequently, the CPC, while processing the return under section 143(1), disallowed the claim of deduction under section ... held that the deduction under section 80P will not be available if the return is not filed within the due date prescribed under section 139(1), even if filed under section 139(4), 142(1), or 148. 4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record

Moqeetur Rahman Khan, Lucknow vs. Income Tax Officer-4(1), Lucknow

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 206/LKW/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow12 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshramoqeetur Rahman Khan V. Ito-4 971, Mannan Manzil, Sadar Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, Bazar, Lucknow G.P.O, Lucknow-226001. Lucknow-226001. Pan:Agrpr4785N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri Amit Singh Chauhan, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Amit Singh Chauhan, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 271BSection 273BSection 44A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “A”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI ANADEE NATH

Shri Guru Nanak Nam Lewa Sewak Jatha, Fatehgarh Sahib vs. ITO, Exemption Ward, Chandigarh

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 521/CHANDI/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Poplani, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 139Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

file the Audit Report for the year under consideration in Form 10B alongwith return of income by the due date as per Section 139 (1) of the Act and since assessee has failed to do so within the prescribed due date, the amount of Rs. 26,64,530/- claimed ... section 11 solely on the ground that the Audit Report in Form 10B was not e-filed within the due date prescribed under section 139(1) of the Act. It was submitted that the CBDT vide Circular No. 10/2019 dt. 22/05/2019 has provided that in all such cases where

Gautambhai Nansinh Chauhan, Anand vs. The ITO, Ward-1(3)(1), Petlad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 711/AHD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Amit Pratap Singh, Sr.DR
Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 271ASection 69A

Khododhi, Khambhat Taluka, District Anand, Gujarat. For the relevant assessment 2 year 2019–20, the assessee did not file return of income under section 139(1). Based on information received through the Insight Portal indicating substantial cash withdrawals amounting to Rs.39,83,841/- during the financial year

Hiral Tapankumar Chudgar, Vadodara, Gujarat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3)(1), Vadodara, Gujarat

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 44/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69Section 69A

relied upon information passed on from DDIT (Inv) Ahmedabad and failed to apply his observations on such information. However assessee in return under section 139(1) in respect to capital gain has declared income as stated below for Assessment Year: PARTICULARS AY 2018-19 SALE CONSIDERATION ... correct but loss of Rs.52,86,454/- is also not claimed by the assessee by filing the return within the Section 139(1) or u/s 147 of the Act. Thus there is no escapement of income, therefore the reassessment proceedings is liable to be deleted. Thus the ground no. 1

Hiral Tapankumar Chudgar, Vadodara, Gujarat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3)(1), Vadodara, Gujarat

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 43/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member And\nShri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar, Accountant Member\nITA Nos 43 & 44/Ahd/2025\nAssessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19\nHiral Tapankumar\nChudgar\n201/A, Premdarshan,\nBehind Jay Ambe School,\nSamasavli Raod, Vemali,\nVadodara-390008,\nGujarat\nPAN: ANCPC4000H\n(Appellant)\nIncome Tax Officer\nWard-1(3)(1),\nVs Vadodara\n(Respondent)\nAssessee Represented:\nShri Deepak Shah, A.R.\nRevenue Represented:\nShri Abhijit, Sr.D.R.\nDate of hearing\n: 18-06-

Section 10(38)Section 115BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69Section 69A

relied upon information passed on from DDIT (Inv) Ahmedabad and failed to apply his observations on such information. However assessee in return under section 139(1) in respect to capital gain has declared income as stated below for Assessment Year: PARTICULARS AY 2018-19 SALE CONSIDERATION ... correct but loss of Rs.52,86,454/- is also not claimed by the assessee by filing the return within the Section 139(1) or u/s 147 of the Act. Thus there is no escapement of income, therefore the reassessment proceedings is liable to be deleted. Thus the ground no. 1

Jayshreeben Jayantibhai Palsana, Limbadiya, Botad, Gujarat vs. ITO Ward 1(9) Bhavanagar, Bhavnagar

ITA 1014/AHD/2025[2024-2025]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Aug 2025AY 2024-2025

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokar

Section 111ASection 112Section 112ASection 112A(6)Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250

Facts of the Case 2.1 The assessee, an individual resident of India, had originally filed her return of income under section 139(1) of the Act on 30.07.2024, declaring total income of Rs.4,27,635/-, comprising the following: Short-term capital gains u/s 111A: Rs.3,79,559/- Long-term capital

Rajesh Baburao Shinde, Parbhani vs. ITO, Ward- Hingoli, Hingoli

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

ITA 781/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.781/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Rajesh Baburao Shinde, Vs. Assessment Unit, Income Sayala Khating, Tq. Dist. Tax Department, Nfac, Parbhani- 431402. Delhi. Pan : Czcps6546Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Shubham N. Rathi Revenue By : Shri Akhilesh Srivastva Date Of Hearing : 22.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12.08.2025 : आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 18.07.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. There Is Delay In Filing Of The Present Appeal. We Are Satisfied With The Reasons Mentioned In The Affidavit For Condonation That The Applicant Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause For Not Filing The Appeal Within The Prescribed Time Limit. After

For Appellant: Shri Shubham N. RathiFor Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastva
Section 142(1)Section 145Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI VINAY

Ammapuram Rajaraman Rajesh, Trichy vs. DCIT, Ncc-17(1), Chennai

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

ITA 813/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.813/Chny/2025 िनधा:रण वष: /Assessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri H.N.Shree Harini, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)

this backdrop, before we proceed to deal with the issue, it may be relevant to capsulate the provisions relevant for determining the issue. Section 139(1) postulates that the assessee is required to furnish a return of income on or before the due date for the previous year ... carry forward for set off under sections 72 to 74A, he is under obligation to furnish the return within the time allowed under section 139(1) of the Act. Section 139(5) on the other hand deals with revised return and states that if any person having furnished a return

Evergreen Infrastructures, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle 31(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the above appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3171/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya,ARFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra (CIT DR) a/w
Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 68Section 69C

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