← All Phrases

“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)

Mannuthy Town Co Operative Society Ltd No R1143, Mannuthy vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(1), Thrissur

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 394/COCH/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am

For Appellant: Shri Alan Dev, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 80ASection 80A(5)Section 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

Mannuthy Town Co Operative Society Limited No R 1143, Mannuthy vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(1), Thrissur

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 384/COCH/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am

For Appellant: Shri Alan Dev, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 80ASection 80A(5)Section 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

Wadakkanchery Govt. Servants Co-Op Society, Wadakkanchery, Thrissur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Thrissur

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands dismissed

ITA 183/COCH/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year: 2023-24 Wadakkanchery Govt. Servants Co-Op. Society .......... Appellant Vadakkanchery P.O., Thrissur 680582 [Pan: Aaaaw5839L] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Wd-2(1), Thrissur .......... Respondent Appellant By: Shri Vipin K.K., Ca Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 12.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.07.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 16.01.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2023-24. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is A Co-Operative Society Registered Under The Kerala State Co-Operative Societies Act, 1969. It Is Engaged In The Business Of Accepting Deposits From Members & Providing Credit Facilities To Members. The Appellant Filed The Return Of Income On 11.12.2023 Declaring Nil Income After Claiming Deduction U/S. 80P(2)(A)(I) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961

For Appellant: Shri Vipin K.K., CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 148Section 80ASection 80A(5)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

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

Indian Medical Association Pune Branch, Shukrawar Peth vs. DCIT Exemption Circle, Pune, Swargate

In the result, all the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 766/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250

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

Indian Medical Association Pune Branch, Shukrawar Peth vs. DCIT Exemption Circle, Pune, Swargate

In the result, all the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 765/PUN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250

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

Indian Medical Association Pune Branch, Shukrawar Peth vs. DCIT Exemption Circle, Pune, Swargate

In the result, all the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 763/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250

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

Indian Medical Association Pune Branch, Shukrawar Peth vs. DCIT Exemption Circle, Pune, Swargate

In the result, all the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 762/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250

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

Indian Medical Association Pune Branch, Shukrawar Peth vs. DCIT Exemption Circle Pune, Swargate

In the result, all the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 761/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250

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

Ganesh Subhash Dhayarkar, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 6(1), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 752/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms.Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Bharat ShahFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 54F

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “A”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS.ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Ernst & Young U.S. LLP, Noida vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle International Tax 1(2)(2), New Delhi

In the result, bot the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 1254/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prakash Chand Yadav & Shri Naveen Chandraita No.1243/Del/2025 (Assessment Year 2022-23) Ernst & Young U.S. Llp Acit, Circle, C/O Authorized Representative, International Tax- Ernst & Young Llp, Vs. 1(2)(2), New Delhi. 5Th Floor, Tower-2, Plot No.2B, Sector-126, Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar (U.P.)-201304. Pan-Aadfe0355M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri S. Ganesh, Sr. Adv. & Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. Department By Shri Nikhil Kumar Govila, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 17/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31/07/2025 O R D E R Per Bench: The Present Appeals Of The Assessee Are Arising Out From The Order Of Ld. Assessing Officer Dated 18Th December, 2024 & 12Th December, 2024 & Relates To Assessment Year 2018-19 & Assessment Year 2022-23 Respectively.

Section 139(4)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘D’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI

Ernst & Young U.S. LLP, Noida vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle International Tax 1(2)(2), New Delhi

In the result, bot the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 1243/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Prakash Chand Yadav & Shri Naveen Chandraita No.1243/Del/2025 (Assessment Year 2022-23) Ernst & Young U.S. Llp Acit, Circle, C/O Authorized Representative, International Tax- Ernst & Young Llp, Vs. 1(2)(2), New Delhi. 5Th Floor, Tower-2, Plot No.2B, Sector-126, Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar (U.P.)-201304. Pan-Aadfe0355M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri S. Ganesh, Sr. Adv. & Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. Department By Shri Nikhil Kumar Govila, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 17/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31/07/2025 O R D E R Per Bench: The Present Appeals Of The Assessee Are Arising Out From The Order Of Ld. Assessing Officer Dated 18Th December, 2024 & 12Th December, 2024 & Relates To Assessment Year 2018-19 & Assessment Year 2022-23 Respectively.

Section 139(4)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘D’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI

Aa520 Veerampalayam Pacs Ltd., Erode vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Erode

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

ITA 593/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:593/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Aa520 Veerappampalayam Ito, Primary Agricultural Co-Operative Vs. Ward -2 (1), Society Ltd., Erode. 1, Aa520, Veerappampalayam, Veerappampalayam Bo, Attavanai Hanumanpalli, Erode – 638 101. [Pan:Aadaa-8893-M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. G. Vardini Karthik, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Kumar Chandan, Jcit (Virtual)

For Appellant: Ms. G. Vardini Karthik, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Kumar Chandan, JCIT (Virtual)
Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 2(6)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

Appeals) erred in disallowing the deduction claimed under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) and 80P(2)(d) A. Furnishing of Return of Income Section 139(4) 1) The CIT(A) failed to see that the assessee had furnished his return of income within the time frame prescribed under section 139

T.T.92.Kadayanallur P.U. Area Teachers Co - Op Thrift Credit Society, Tenkasi vs. ITO, Ward-1, Tirunelveli

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

ITA 1352/CHNY/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jul 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri G. Reddi Prakash, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

Tres aiteite aftreeur, ‘at =orite, dag IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI Wf aq pag fie, ater

The Gokak & Mudalagi Taluka Primary Teachers Co Op Credit Society Ltd, Gokak vs. Income Tax Officer, Gokak

ITA 33/PAN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji23 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 033/Pan/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19 The Gokak & Mudalagi Taluka Primary Teachers Co-Op. Society, Ltd. Opp. Jss College, Falls Road, Gokak, Dist. Belagavi.-591307 Pan : Aaaat4120D . . . . . . . Appellant V/S The Income Tax Officer, Gokak, Belagavi. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Mr Sateesh Nadagauda [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Ms Rijjula Uniyal [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 15/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 23/07/2025 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; By Captioned Appeal The Assessee Impugns Din & Order 1071086412(1) Dt. 11/12/2024 Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. Nfac/Cit(A)’ Hereinafter] U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’ Hereinafter] Which In Turn Arisen Out Of Order Of Assessment Dt. 31/03/2021 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act By National Faceless E-Asstt Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. Ao’ Hereinafter] Anent To Assessment Year 2018-19 [‘Ay’ Hereinafter].

For Appellant: Mr Sateesh Nadagauda [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Ms Rijjula Uniyal [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80ASection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(b)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PANAJI BENCH, GOA BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI

Rani Channamma Co-Operative Credit Society Limited, Haveri vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Haveri

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

ITA 826/BANG/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jul 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, Advocate, Standing
Section 119(2)(b)Section 139Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 80ASection 80P

business of providing credit facilities to its members. For the year under consideration, the assessee filed belated return of income under section 139(4) of the Act declaring income at NIL after claiming a deduction under section 80P of Act amounting to Rs. 5,07,058/- only. The return

Kumarapuram Service Co-Operative Bank Limited No 2147, Karthikappally vs. ITO, Ward 2, Alappuzha

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

ITA 391/COCH/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year: 2021-22 Kumarapuram Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. .......... Appellant Kumarapuram Village, Thamalakkal P.O. Haripad, Alappuzha 690549 [Pan: Aaabk0740M] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Alappuzha .......... Respondent Appellant By: Shri Sabu, Ca Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 05.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.07.2025

For Appellant: Shri Sabu, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 80ASection 80P

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM AND SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JM Assessment

Ponraj, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corp. Ward 8(5), Chennai

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

ITA 714/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 714/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ponraj, Income Tax Officer, No. 307, W Block, Vs. Non Corp, Ward 8(5), C Sector, 20Th Street, Chennai. Anna Nagar, Chennai – 600 101. [Pan:Avlpp-6598-G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Y.Sridhar, F.C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Pryati Sharma, J.C.I.T.

For Appellant: Shri. Y.Sridhar, F.C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Pryati Sharma, J.C.I.T
Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी जॉज" जॉज" के, उपा

Indian National Congress All India Congress Committee, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-19, New Delhi

ITA 1609/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 13ASection 143(3)

assessee has not furnished satisfactory explanation and simply asserted that it has filed its return of income within due date as prescribed by section 139(4) of the Act. Thus, the assessee has violated the provisions of section13A of the Act by not furnishing the return of income with inundate ... assessee has not furnished satisfactory explanation and simply asserted that it has filed its return of income within due date as prescribed by section 139(4) of the Act. Thus, the assessee has violated the provisions of section13A of the Act by not furnishing the return of income with inundate

Barigala Saroja, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Guntur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

ITA 472/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: the Tribunal. In respect of the belated filing of the appeal, the assessee filed a petition seeking condonation of delay along with an affidavit dated 24/01/2025 and explained the reasons for such delay. For the sake of immediate reference, the contents of the said affidavit are extracted herein below: "1.......

Section 133(6)Section 139(4)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM श्री रवीश सूद, माननीय न्याययक सदस्य एवं श्री एस बालाकृष्णन, माननीय

Bilaspur Model Education Society, Bilaspur vs. Income Tax Officer-1(1), Bilaspur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 321/RPR/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.321/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2022-23 Bilaspur Model Education Society, Hig. 8, Amaltas Colony, Near Mangla Chowk, Bilaspur (C.G.)-495 001 Pan: Aaajb1009Q .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(1), Bilaspur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 12A(1)(b)Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ “एक-सद"य” मामला रायपुर म" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH