“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)

Primary Agricultural Credit Cooperative Society, Bijapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Bijapur

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

ITA 1125/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Saidappa B. Gadadi, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for Department

Section 250Section 69ASection 80ASection 80P

during the relevant A.Y.2017-18 but the assessee failed to furnish ROI for A.Y.2017-18 in response to this notice. As per the provisions of section 139(4) of the Act, the assessee has to file the ROI before the end of the relevant year or before the completion of the assessment

DCIT, Circle, Yamunanagar vs. M/S Symbiosis Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd., Yamunanagar

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 326/CHANDI/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: The Due Date As Prescribed In Section 139(1) Of The I.T. Act, 1961 Whereas The Assessee Has Filed Its Return Of Income After The Due Date.

For Appellant: Shri Dhruv Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sarabjeet Singh, CIT-DR

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 80ASection 80I

income was filed belated, but claims for deduction on the ground that the due date of filing of return be allowed as per section 139(4) in place of date as per section 139(1). 5.3 After considering the facts and submission, I find that the provisions of section 80AC ... time as prescribed under sub section (1) of (2) of section 139 would not get benefit by filing the return under section 139(4) much later. This cannot certainly be the legislative intent. If the plea of the appellants was accepted, it would mean that in a given case where

Madhu Souharda Pathina Sahakari Niyamitha, Madhugiri vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Tumkur

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 969/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Chalapathy, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 56Section 80A(5)Section 80P

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

Kuruhinasetty Souharda Credit Cooperative Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-5(2)(1), Banglore

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

ITA 909/BANG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Kuruhinasetty Souharda Credit Vs. Ito, Co-Operative Ltd., Ward – 5(2)(1), No.5, Sakamma Bhavana, Bengaluru. Vishveshwarapura, Bengaluru – 560 004. Pan : Aabak 4862 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Tarun Kothari, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Subramanian S, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 02.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.01.2024

For Appellant: Shri. Tarun Kothari, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80ASection 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)

facilities as loans to its members under the concept of mutuality. For the Assessment Year 2018-19, return of income was filed under section 139(4) of the Act on 01.03.2019 declaring Nil income after claiming deduction under section 80P of the Act amounting to Rs.2 ... under section 139(1) of the Act was 30.09.2018. In the instant case, assessee had filed the return of income under section 139(4) of the Act on 01.03.2019. Therefore, in view of the provisions of section 80AC of the Act, (which was introduced w.e.f. 01.04.2018), assessee cannot be allowed

Ty Spl85Z Suthamalli Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society Limited, Ariyalur vs. CIT(A), Delhi

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

ITA 909/CHNY/2023[AY 2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Jan 2024

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh

For Appellant: Shri. G. Reddi Prakash, FCAFor Respondent: Shri G. Suresh, IRS, JCIT

Section 119Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

approached a Chartered Accountant for filing of the Income Tax Return, and the same has been filed on 29-11-2018 under section 139(4). It is evident from the provided information that the delay of 29 days in filing the return of Income was primarily a consequence of circumstances

Laxmi Kant Mishra, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 35(5), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 964/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Dec 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: the end of the relevant

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 148Section 271F

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’: NEW DELHI BEFORE, SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI YOGESH

Laxmi Kant Mishra, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 35(5), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 963/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Dec 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: the end of the relevant

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 148Section 271F

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’: NEW DELHI BEFORE, SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI YOGESH

Nilanjan Chaudhari, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Circle- 3, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2746/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Dec 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: BEFORE, SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54E

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘E’: NEW DELHI BEFORE, SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER And SHRI ANUBHAV

M/S Supreme Treon Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Cenralized Processing Centre., Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2219/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Dec 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishna Kedia

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 234CSection 250Section 44ASection 80Section 80ASection 80I

thus the return filed by the assessee on 29/11/2015 can only be considered as a belated return under section 139(4) of the Act. It was further held that no audit report under section 44AB, section 92E, or section 80-IC as required in the case of the assessee ... assessee had undertaken international transactions or specified domestic transactions. The learned CIT(A) further held that once the return is filed belatedly under section 139(4) of the Act, the same cannot be revised under section 139(5) of the Act. The learned CIT(A) also held that the assessee

Pink City Arts and Crafts, Jaipur vs. ACIT Circle 7, Jaipur

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

ITA 428/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Harshit Agrawal(C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Chaudhary (Addl.CIT)

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh

M/S. G.P. Infraventures, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer-1(4), Raipur

The appeal of the department stands disposed off

ITA 94/RPR/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur23 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am (Ita No.76/Rpr/2020) (Assessment Year: 2015-16) Income Tax Officer Ward-1(4), V M/S G.P. Infraventures, 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, S Shree Tower, Shankar Nagar, Central Revenue Building, Raipur (C.G.) Civil Lines, Raipur (C.G.) Pan: Aanfg6074B (अपीलाथ" /Applicant) : (""यथ" / Respondent) (Ita No.94/Rpr/2020) (Assessment Year: 2015-16) M/S G.P. Infraventures, V Income Tax Officer-1(4), Shree Tower, Shankar Nagar, S Raipur Raipur (C.G.) Pan: Aanfg6074B (अपीलाथ" /Applicant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Smt. Ila M. Parmar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 10.10.2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख / Date Of : 23.11.2023 7Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Ila M. Parmar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 40ASection 40A(3)Section 68

jurisdiction over the assessee at all material point of time. The assessee filed return of income on 31/03/2018, under section 139(4). A notice u/s.143(2) of the Act, dated 24/09/2018 was issued by the ITO Ward 1(2)(1), who never had jurisdiction over the assessee. Thereafter, another notice

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(4), Raipur vs. Mesers G P Infraventures, Raipur

The appeal of the department stands disposed off

ITA 76/RPR/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur23 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Ila M. Parmar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 40ASection 40A(3)Section 68

Voluntary Medcare Society, Srinagar vs. Income Tax Officer ( Exemptions) Ward, Jammu

In the result, the appeal of the assessee ITA No

ITA 262/ASR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Nov 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)Section 12A(1)(b)Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250

section 139.CBDT in the instructions No. 173/193/2019-ITA-1 dated 23rd April 2019 directed that time allowed under section 139(4A) is time allowed under section 139(4). 5. The ld. DR vehemently argued and mentioned that specific CBDT instruction is applicable for the competent Authority. So assessee can approach competent authorities

Anil Nachrani, Raipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bhopal

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 47/RPR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur22 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am (Ita No. 47/Rpr/2022) (Assessment Year: 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri Veekaas S Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Shri Debashish Lahiri, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 263Section 263(1)

Learned PCIT inasmuch as the return filed in response to the notice u/s 148 is very much a return filed u/s 139 and Section 139(4) permits belated filing of the return and therefore, the Learned A.O is not absolved from his duty to issue notice u/s 143(2) merely

Shree Swami Samarth Seva Kendra, Mumbai vs. ITO, Exem. Ward 2(3), Mumbai

ITA 2419/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ajeya Kumar Ojha, D.R

Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 139(4)

income tax return as required under section 139(1) of the Act but filed subsequently on 23.12.2016 along with income tax return under section 139(4) of the Act. 6. In the backdrop of the aforesaid undisputed facts and circumstances of the case the sole question arises for determination

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Panaji vs. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Mathiyan, Muzaffarnagar

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 4/PAN/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji06 Nov 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.3 & 4/Pan/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14

Section 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 153ASection 56(2)(vii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PANAJI BENCH, PANAJI (AT e-Court, PUNE) BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Panaji vs. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Mathiyan, Muzaffarnagar

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 3/PAN/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji06 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.3 & 4/Pan/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14

Section 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 153ASection 56(2)(vii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PANAJI BENCH, PANAJI (AT e-Court, PUNE) BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND

Sahara Infrastructure & Housing Limited, Kolkata vs. ACIT Central Circle-1, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1726/DEL/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmasahara Infrastructure & Vs. Acit, Housing Ltd, Central Circle-1, Sahara India Sadan, 2A, New Delhi Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata-700071 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aabcg2655B Assessee By : Sh. Dinesh Verma, Adv Shri Hardeep Singh, Ca Revenue By: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 30/10/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 02/11/2023

For Appellant: Sh. Dinesh Verma, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR

Section 139(4)Section 143(3)

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL

Mr. Sujeev Sanjeev Kharwadkar, Maharashtra vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-31(3), Bandra Kurla Complex

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

ITA 2478/MUM/2023[AY 2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Nov 2023

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry (Jm)

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 139(5)

income has been filed beyond the due date prescribed under section 139(1) of the Act, meaning thereby, it was filed under section 139(4) of the Act as belated return of income. 3. Subsequently, the assessee filed a revised return of income on 17.1.2014, wherein the assessee declared rental

Income Tax Officer-12(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Ankita Reality and Development Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue as well as CO of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2212/MUM/2023[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2023AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2212/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Ito-12(1)(1) बिधम/ Ankita Reality & Room No.129 1St Floor, Development Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. H. Cts-40-44, Sahara India Road, Mumbai-400020. Points, Sv Road, Goregaon West, Mumbai- 400104. Cross Objection No. 106/Mum/2023 Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.2212/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Ankita Reality & बिधम/ Ito-12(1)(1) Room No.129 1St Floor, Development Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cts-40-44, Sahara India Aayakar Bhavan, M. H. Points, Sv Road, Goregaon Road, Mumbai-400020. West, Mumbai-400104. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaeca4513D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Siddharth Srivastave/Ms. Ekta Shah Revenue By: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 17/10/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Revenue & The Cross- Objection (Co) Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 19.04.2023 For The Ay 2015-16. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Revenue Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Deleting The Penalty Levied U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) & Pointed Out That Assessee Had Not 2 Co. No.106/M/23 A.Y. 2015-16 Ankita Reality & Development Pvt. Ltd. Filed The Return Of Income U/S 139(1) Of The Act. & The Cross- Objection (Co) Has Been Filed By The Assessee, Supporting The Action Of The Ld Cit(A), As Well As Has Raised Certain Legal Issues.

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Srivastave/Ms. EktaFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha (Sr. AR)

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 147Section 148Section 194CSection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM