← 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)

Poomagal Educational and Social Trust, Tirupur vs. ACIT, Exemptions, Coimbatore

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

ITA 1194/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1194/Chny/2025 िनधा:रण वष: /Assessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Suraj Nahar, C.A JKFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar, JCIT
Section 10Section 10(23)Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 154Section 288

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

Vinayak Bhalchandra Randive, Thane vs. ITO Ward 3(4) Thane, Thane

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

ITA 3005/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 254(1)Section 80CSection 80DSection 80T

income beyond due date prescribed under section 139(1). I find that assessee has filed return within extended time period prescribed under section 139(4). Thus, being appellate authority, I accept the addition scheme of assessee as per the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT Vs Pruthvi

Vinayak Bhalchandra Randive, Thane vs. ITO Ward 3(4), Thane

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

ITA 2991/MUM/2025[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 254(1)Section 80CSection 80DSection 80T

income beyond due date prescribed under section 139(1). I find that assessee has filed return within extended time period prescribed under section 139(4). Thus, being appellate authority, I accept the addition scheme of assessee as per the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT Vs Pruthvi

District Probation & After Care Association Satara, Satara vs. ITO, Exemption Ward1(1), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2607/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar CIT-DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “A”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL

The Gasper Education Society, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 7(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 871/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Jun 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.871/Kol/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-2019) The Gasper Education Society Vs Ito Ward-7 (1), Kolkata 40A, Ajc Bose Road, Nonapukur Tram Depot, Kolkata-700017 Pan No. :Aaabt 0159 K (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Giridhar Dhelia, Advocate रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri P.N.Barnwal, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 25/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25/06/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per George Mathan, Jm : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 06.03.2025 Of The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Passed In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024- 25/1074097940(1) For The Assessment Year 2018-2019. 2. Shri Giridhar Dhelia, Ld. Advocate Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri P.N.Barnwal, Ld. Cit-Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. 3. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Return Filed By The Assessee Was Processed & The Assessment Came To Be Completed U/S.143(3) Of The Act, Wherein The Assessing Officer Has Denied The Assessee The Benefit Of Sections 11 & 12 Of The Act On The Ground That The Return Filed By The Assessee Was U/S.139(4) Of The Act. It Was The Submission That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Also Confirmed The Order Of The Assessing Officer. Ld.Ar Drew Our Attention To The Circular Issued By The Cbdt In F.No.173/193/2019-Ita-

For Appellant: Shri Giridhar Dhelia, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.N.Barnwal, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ba)Section 139Section 139(4)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)

dispute to the fact that the assessee has filed its return of income for this year within the time limit of section 139(4) of the Act. Therefore, the department was not correct in denying the exemption u/s11 of the Act while processing the return. 11. The Circular ... demand raised u/s 143(1)(a) of the Act. As the assessee had filed its return of income within the time limit of section 139(4) of the Act, it was eligible for benefit of exemption u/s 11 of the Act. It has been held by the Ld. ITAT, Rajkot

Maya Sikshan Prashikshan Sansthan, Mendu Road Hathras vs. Income Tax Officer, Hathras

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 559/AGR/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Agra24 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalincome Tax Officer, Maya Sikshan Ward-(3)(4), Prashikshan Sansthan, Vs. Hathras. Ravinder Singh Prakash Textile Compound, Mendu Road, Hathras-204101 Pan-Aaabm5383N (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 10Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AGRA BENCH: AGRA BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL

Roads and Bridges Development Corporation of Kerala Ltd, Ernakulam vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 2(1), Kochi, Ernakulam

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 568/COCH/2023[A.Y 2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin24 Jun 2025

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm Assessment Year: 2011-12 Roads & Bridges Development .......... Appellant Corporation Of Kerala Ltd. Preethi Building, M.V. Road, Palarivattom Ernakulam 682025 [Pan: Aabcr7841Q] Vs. Acit, Corporte Circles-2(1), Kochi .......... Respondent Appellant By: Smt. Remya S. Menon, Ca Respondent By: Shri Sundarasan S., Cit.Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.06.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 17.03.2023 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2011-12. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is A Company Which Is A Wholly Owned By Government Of Kerala Undertaking. It Is Engaged In The Business Of Construction, Development, Operation & Maintenance Of Railway Over Bridges, Highway Projects, Etc. The 2 Roads & Bridges Development Corporation Of Kerala Ltd. Original Return Of Income For Ay 2011-12 Was Filed On 28.09.2011 Declaring Loss Of Rs. 9,65,43,016/-. The Same Was Revised On 07.01.2013 At A Loss Of Rs. 5,11,71,331/-. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The Acit, Corporate Circle 2(1), Kochi Vide Order Dated 30.03.2014 At Total Income Of Rs.2,10,68,827/- Before Set Off Of Brought Forward Loss. Ultimately The Income Was Assessed At Nil Income. Subsequently, The Ao Issued A Notice U/S. 148 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) On 10.04.2015 For The Reason That Income Escaped Assessment To Tax For Following Reasons: -

For Appellant: Smt. Remya S. Menon, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sundarasan S., CIT.DR
Section 139(4)Section 143Section 148

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM AND SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV, JM

Ambalappuzha Service Co-Operative Society Ltd, Ambalappuzha vs. ITO, Ward -2, Alappuzha

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed the and stay application stands dismissed

ITA 373/COCH/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm & Sa No. 53/Coch/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Ambalapuzha Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. .......... Appellant Kakkazham, Vandanam, Alappuzha 688005 [Pan: Aacak0787F] Vs. The Income Tax Officer. Ward-2, Alappuzha .......... Respondent Appellant By: Shri Suresh Kumar Varma, Ca Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 30.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.06.2025

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Kumar Varma, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 41(1)Section 68Section 69ASection 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

Raghu Satyanaryana Kollu, Kodad vs. ITO., Ward-1, Suryapet

In the result, both the captioned appeals are allowed in terms of the aforesaid observations

ITA 413/HYD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Us:

Section 147Section 148Section 250

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

Raghu Satyanaryana Kollu, Kodad vs. ITO., Ward-1, Suryapet

In the result, both the captioned appeals are allowed in terms of the aforesaid observations

ITA 412/HYD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Us:

Section 147Section 148Section 250

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

Vividha Karyakari Co-Op Society, Chandrapur vs. ITO Ward-2, Chandrapur

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

ITA 76/NAG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur18 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir Atal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anand Nagrale, Sr.DR
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 131(4)Section 139Section 139(4)Section 250Section 80P(2)(d)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR “SMC” BENCH : NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A.No. 76/NAG/2025 (Assessment

Ajinkya Madhyamik Shikshak Sevak Sah. Patsanstha, Maryadit, Satara vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Satara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2214/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Jun 2025AY 2020-21
For Appellant: Shri Prateek JhaFor Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastava
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 80ASection 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

Khandra Colliery Employees Co Operative Credit Society Ltd., Bardhaman vs. The AO, CPC Bangalore / ITO, Ward-1(1), Burdwan

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2594/KOL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A), Where Also He Could Not Succeed.

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 234FSection 250Section 80ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

However, after 1-4-2018, even if assessee made his claim for deduction under section 80P in a return filed within time under section 139(4), 142(1) or 148, he would not be allowed deduction unless returns so filed was within due date prescribed under section 139(1) - Whether

Shree Amar Kshatriya Sabha Charitable Trust, Jammu vs. Income Tax Officer Ward- ( Exemptions), Jammu

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 492/ASR/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar16 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. No. 492/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2020-21

Section 11Section 119Section 12(1)(b)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 250

further submitted that in the instant case, the return that has been filed on 25th March 2021 within time allowed under section 139(4) of the Act (rws I.T.A. No. 492/Asr/2024 6 Assessment Year: 2020-21 139(4A), which has been accepted and assessed by the AO, CPC Bangalore

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 767/PUN/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. PathakFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 11Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.767/PUN/2025

Riddhi Seva Kendra, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Exempt, Kolkata

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

ITA 370/KOL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrariddhi Seva Kendra, Adit, Cpc, Bengaluru, C/O Subas Agarwal & Ito, Ward-1(1), Exempt, Associates, Advocates, Siddha Kolkata Income Tax Office, Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Vs 10B, Middleton Road, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata - 700071 Kolkata - 700069 (Pan: Aaatr2893Q) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Siddarth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Kallol Mistry, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT

Vivek Tiwari, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle 3, Suri

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

ITA 163/KOL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 90

case, appellant has submitted Form-67 with a slight delay of 8 days only and is filed well within provision of section 139(4) of the ITA, 1961. As such, appellant is eligible for Foreign Tax Credit of Rs. 16,49,094/-, which is duly reported and supported with documentary

Gram Vikas Trust, Berhampur vs. ITO, Exemption Ward, Berampur

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2014-

ITA 437/CTK/2024[AY 2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack12 Jun 2025

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 11(2)Section 119(2)(b)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 234BSection 250

return of income under section 139(1) get extended to include the time within which a return of income could be filed under section 139(4) of the Act. Therefore, filing of Form 10 during reassessment proceeding is filing of the same within the time allowed for furnishing the return ... income under section 139(4). Therefore, the revenue has not been able to point out any reasons why the aforesaid two decisions should not be applied in the facts of the present case to reject the appeal. [Para 12]” 3.1. Further, reliance was placed on the decisions of ITAT, Pune

Gram Vikas Trust, Berhampur vs. ITO, Exemption Ward, Berampur

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2014-

ITA 436/CTK/2024[AY 2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack12 Jun 2025

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 11(2)Section 119(2)(b)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 234BSection 250

return of income under section 139(1) get extended to include the time within which a return of income could be filed under section 139(4) of the Act. Therefore, filing of Form 10 during reassessment proceeding is filing of the same within the time allowed for furnishing the return ... income under section 139(4). Therefore, the revenue has not been able to point out any reasons why the aforesaid two decisions should not be applied in the facts of the present case to reject the appeal. [Para 12]” 3.1. Further, reliance was placed on the decisions of ITAT, Pune

Income Tax Officer, Bodhi Tower vs. Kumar Builders Project Pune Private Limited, Bund Garden

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

ITA 199/PUN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 80ISection 80P

allowed to assessee if the return is filed on or before the due date specified under sub- section (1) of section 139. However, section 139(4) carves out an exception to the time limit u/s 139(1) for filing the return of income. Therefore, time limit for filing the return