“Section 139(4)”

Section References (mined)Section 139Section 139(4)938 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 139(4) is Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan (263 ITR 706), cited in 691 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 139(4)

Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan

263 ITR 706 · 2003 · Supreme Court

691

citing judgments

A citizen is free to carry on business within the law, and mere tax planning without a motive to evade taxes through colorable devices is not frowned upon. The liability to taxation, for the purpose of tax treaty application, is a legal situation, not the fiscal fact of actual payment.

Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT

384 ITR 490 · 2016 · High Court

631

citing judgments

Co-operative banks are not fundamentally different from co-operative societies, entitling them to claim deductions under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961, including for interest income treated as business income.

Commissioner of Sales Tax v. H.M. Esufali H.M. Abdulali

90 ITR 271 · 1973 · Supreme Court

232

citing judgments

The Supreme Court established principles for best judgment assessments, stating that some guesswork is inevitable but the assessment must be bona fide, rational, and free from bias or capriciousness. An appellate authority cannot substitute its judgment for that of the Assessing Officer unless the AO's assessment is shown to be biased, irrational, vindictive, or capricious, especially when the assessee fails to provide proper accounts or counter-evidence.

Smt. Tarulata Shyam v. CIT

108 ITR 345 · 1977 · Supreme Court

209

citing judgments

Taxing statutes must be interpreted strictly, assuming that the law-making authority does not commit a mistake or make an omission. There is no room for purposive interpretation under direct tax laws.

CIT v. Suresh Chandra Mittal

251 ITR 9 · 2001 · Supreme Court

179

citing judgments

A penalty under section 271(1)(c) for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income is not automatically leviable merely because a higher income is declared, even after a search or in a voluntarily revised return. The initial burden to prove concealment or inaccurate particulars lies with the Revenue.

CIT v. Lancy Constructions

237 Taxmann 728 · 2016 · High Court

146

citing judgments

A High Court's decision that approves an ITAT's ruling, which was based on another case, is considered in later judicial pronouncements concerning assessment proceedings.

CIT v. Nagpur Hotel Owners Association

247 ITR 201 · 2001 · Supreme Court

112

citing judgments

While there is no statutory time limit for filing Form 10 to claim exemption for income accumulation under Section 11(2), it must be furnished before the completion of assessment proceedings for the Assessing Officer to grant the exemption.

Chicago Pneumatic India Ltd. v. DCIT

15 SOT 252 · 2007 · ITAT

111

citing judgments

The Assessing Officer must grant the correct deduction after due verification of claims made by the assessee, even if not perfectly articulated initially. This principle applies in assessment proceedings, including those involving specific deductions like those for export-oriented units under Section 10B.

Judgments citing Section 139(4)

Gangaram Reddy Tekulapalli, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Int Taxn- 2, Hyderabad

In the result appeal ITA

ITA 786/HYD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA, P R SureshFor Respondent: Sri Siva Prasad, SV, Sr. AR

Section 142(1)Section 144CSection 144C(15)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 54F

aforesaid issue, and held, that the “return of income” filed by the assessee beyond the period stipulated under Section 139(1) or Section 139(4) or Section 142(1) or Section 148 can also be accepted and acted upon provided further proceedings in relation to such assessment are pending

Sumit Jindal, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-5, Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 450/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 132(4)Section 153A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘G’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI NAVEEN

Sumit Jindal, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-5, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1064/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 132(4)Section 153A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘G’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI NAVEEN

The Property Association of Baptist Churches Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Exemption Ward-3, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2356/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2355 & 2356/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18 The Property Association Of Baptist Vs. The Income Tax Officer Churches Pvt. Ltd., 903, Tower E2, (Exemption) Ward 3, Ekanta North Town, Stephension Road, Chennai. Perambur, Chennai 600 012. [Pan:Aabct2815J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Akash, Advocate & Shri P.M. Kathir, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri N. Rajakumar, Addl. Cit (Virtual) सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 03.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.09.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Dated 14.03.2024 & 28.02.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Years 2016-17 & 2017-18 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri G. Akash, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri N. Rajakumar, Addl. CIT (Virtual)

Section 11Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 154

Heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. It is noted that the assessee filed return of income under section 139(4) of the Act on 21.03.2018 as against the due date of filing return on 31.03.2018. The CPC, Bangalore denied the claim of the assessee under

The Property Association of Baptist Churches Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Exemption Ward-3, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2355/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri G. Akash, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri N. Rajakumar, Addl. CIT (Virtual)

Section 11Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 154

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)

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

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

Income Tax Officer Ward-3(3)(2), Ahmedabad vs. Manthan Shyam Ganatra, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2032/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Mishra, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Maloo, AR

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 68

relating to the case are that the assessee did not file its return of income in the time stipulated u/s 139(1) or section 139(4) of the Act. The Assessing Officer (AO), on the basis of information that the assessee had entered into certain transactions of sale of immovable

Pahalampur Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Ltd., Hooghly vs. ITO, Ward 23(1), Hooghly

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 887/KOL/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Sept 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 Pahalampur Samabay Krishi Ito, Ward-23(1), Hooghly Unnayan Ltd.

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. B. Chakraborthy, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 148Section 153ASection 80Section 80P

Section 80P of the Act in response of belated return is in issue. In the instant case, the return was filed belatedly under Section 139(4) of the Act. While drawing the intimation under Section 143(1) of the Act, the CPC, Bengaluru has denied the claim of deduction under

The Dharapuram Agricultural Producers Cooperative Marketing Society Limited, Tirupur vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(4) Tirupur, Tirupur

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

ITA 1671/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1671/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21 The Dharapuram Agricultural Producers Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Cooperative Marketing Society Limited, Ward 2(4), New No. 487, Old No. 280, Tirupur. Chinnakadai Street, Opp. Arasamaram Stop, Dharapuram, Tiruppur 638 702. [Pan:Aabat8601Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. A. Vijayalakshmi, Ca (Virtual) ""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 : 02.09.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 13.03.2025 Passed By The Addl/Jcit(A)-1, Visakhapatnam For The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 9 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Affidavit

For Appellant: Ms. A. Vijayalakshmi, CA (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri N. Rajakumar, Addl. CIT

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)

that the assessee has not filed the return of income under section 139(1) of the Act and subsequently filed the ROI under section 139(4) of the Act. As per condonation petition filed by the assessee dated 21.05.2024, the ld. CCIT, Coimbatore condoned the delay in filing

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

heard and record perused. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that the assessee filed return of income within extended time period under section 139(4). The return was processed under section 143(1a). The CPC while processing return of income not allowed deduction under section ... 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 carefully. I have also deliberated

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)

beyond the due date prescribed under section 139(1) of the Act, but was filed before the date of filing the return under section 139(4) of the Act. The intention of the assessee to disclose the income under the new tax regime under section 115BAA

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)

ACIT Anand Circle, Anand vs. Elecon Engineering Company Ltd, Vallabh Vidyanagar

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2084/AHD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Us.

For Appellant: Smt. Kakoli Uttam Ghosh, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri M. K. Patel, Advocate

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 32(2)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE: SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT

The Kattoor Service Cooperative Bank Limited, Thrissur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Thrissur

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 561/COCH/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin26 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Amaljith P.J., CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69ASection 80P

other words, after 1.4.2018, even if the assessee makes his claim for deduction under Section 80P in a return filed within time under Sections 139(4), 142(1) or Section 148, he will not be allowed the deduction, unless the return in question was filed within the due date prescribed

The Kattoor Service Cooperative Bank Limited, Thrissur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Thrissur

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 559/COCH/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin26 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Amaljith P.J., CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69ASection 80P

Marathwada Association of Small Scale Indutries & Agriculture, Pune vs. CIT(A), Addl/JCIT(A)1, Gurugram

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

ITA 1077/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Ms. Shubhada L JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)(b)Section 139Section 143(1)

trust is holding a valid certificate of registration under section 12AA of the Act since 24/09/1982. In its return of income filed under section 139(4) of the Act, the assessee claimed exemption in respect of revenue expenditure and capital expenses under section 11 of the Act. While processing

Shri. Balaji Vividodeeshagala Souharda Sahakari Sangha Niyamita, Haveri vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Haveri

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

ITA 827/BANG/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Siddhesh Nagraj Gaddi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Department

Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 80P

assessee is a society registered under Karnataka Souharda Sahakari Act. The assessee for the year under dispute belatedly filed return of income under section 139(4) of the Act dated 23-11-2020. The assessee declared income at NIL after claiming deduction under section

Shri Kingshuk Ghoshal, Lucknow vs. Income Tax Officer-6(5), Lucknow

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 200/LKW/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Kinghshuk Ghoshal V. The Ito 6(5) E-402, Halwasiya Utsav Enclave Lucknow Opposite Hal, Faizabad Road Lucknow Tan/Pan:Affpg3258L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against Order Dated 26.12.2017, Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), Lucknow-3 (Ld. Cit(A)) For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 29.11.2012, Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.1,05,233/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Assessing Officer (Ao) Noticed That The Assessee Was Earning Interest Income From Saving Bank Deposits & Fdrs & That The Assessee Had Claimed Exemption Of Rs.71,54,619/- Under Section 54 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’). During The

For Appellant: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R

Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 45Section 54Section 80E

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shri

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

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) in the context of Section 80AC of the Act, which specifically insists ... ground that the deduction under section 80-IA of the Act cannot be claimed where the Return of Income was filed under section 139(4) of the Act 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) erred in upholding