“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)

Smt. Heenaben Maheshbhai Gadhethariya, Rajkot vs. The ITO Ward-3 (1) (1), Rajkot

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

ITA 117/RJT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot07 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Miss Suchitra Raghunath Kambleassessment Year :2017-18 Smt. Heenaben Maheshbhai Vs. The Ito, Ward-3(1) Gadhethariya Rajkot. Flat B/21, Copper Elegance Nr.Ambika Township, Mavdi Police Ground Rajkot, Gujarat Pan : Ahwpg 7174 J

For Appellant: Shri R.B. Shah, Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Kumar Pandey, Sr.DR

Section 115BSection 144Section 250Section 250(6)Section 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, राजकोट "यायपीठ आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "यायपीठ "यायपीठ, , , , राजकोट "यायपीठ IN THE

Rahul Ranjit Bhat, Mumbai vs. Asstt. DIT CPC-Income Tax, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1340/MUM/2023[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Aug 2023AY 2020-2021

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing Return Of Income As Per Rule 128(9) Of The Income Tax Rules, 1962 In The Adjustment Made U/S.143(1).

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 39(1)Section 90

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘D‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & MS. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

M/S. Khadi Grammodhyog Pratisthan, Bikaner vs. ADIT, CPC / ITO, Ward-1(2), Bangaluru / Bikaner

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 87/JODH/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur31 Aug 2023AY 2019-20

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 250(6)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR VIRTUAL HEARING BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI

Jaquar and Company Private Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-19, Delhi

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

ITA 1985/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG (Judicial Member), DR. B.R.R. KUMAR (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 80J

other deductions of Part C of Chapter VI-A, including section 80P, can be claimed in the return filed under any section, including section 139(4); the six deductions as referred to in section 80AC must necessarily be claimed in the return filed u/s 139(1) only. Ex consequenti

Blueprint Infrahomes LLP, Jaipur vs. ADIT CPC Bengaluru Or ITO Ward 6(1) Jaipur, Jaipur

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

ITA 68/JPR/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Aug 2023AY 2021-22

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

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT)

Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 801BSection 80I

uploaded only on 31.03.2014 and admittedly was late in terms of Section 139(1), though within the extended time as set out in Section 139(4) as far as the levy of penalty etc. was concerned. Section 80AC of the Income Tax Act specifically lays down that deduction is admissible

Bhiwadi Integrated Development Authority, Bhiwadi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(2), Alwar, Bhiwadi

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

ITA 380/JPR/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Aug 2023AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Agarwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik ( CIT)

Section 10(20)

enclosed with the Paper- book as Annexure- 1 and Annexure-2 respectively. 2. The Authority filed its original return under section 139(4) - belated return for the assessment year 2019-20 on 30.11.2020, declaring loss of Rs. 206859959/- and the case was selected for scrutiny under the e-assessment Scheme

Deloitte India Advisory Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi/CIT(A), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1202/MUM/2023[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2023AY 2020-2021

Bench: The Revised Return, Therefore The Appellant Ought To Have Been Allowed Entire Foreign Tax Relief Of Rs. 2,82,44,841. 1.3 The Learned Nfac Ought To Have Appreciated That Rule 128 Of The Income Tax Rules, 1962 Does Not Provide For Disallowance Of Foreign Tax Relief In Case Of Filing Of Revised Form 67 Along With The Revised Return. 1.4 The Learned Nfac Ought To Have Granted The Balance Foreign Tax Relief Amounting To Rs. 1,34,86,569 Since The Appellant Has Filed The Revised Form 67 Before The Due Date Of Filing Of Revised Return Of Income.

Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 90Section 90(2)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘D‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & MS. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Bethany Seva Sangam, Durg vs. Income Tax Officer, (Exemption) Ward-2, Raipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 72/RPR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.72/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Bethany Seva Sangam C/O. Bethany College Of Nursing, Borsi, Durg (C.G.) Pan : Aaaab0776D .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, (Exemption), Ward-2, Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 12ASection 139Section 147Section 148Section 272ASection 272A(2)(e)

that for levying penalty u/s.272A(2)(e), the period of default was to be counted up to the time limit laid down in section 139(4) of the Act. For the sake of clarity, relevant observations of the Tribunal are culled out as under: “8.8. Further the argument ... opinion that for default u/s 272A(2)(e) of the IT Act, time limit to be counted as laid down in section 139 (4) of the IT Act. Accordingly, we direct the assessing officer to recomputed the penalty. The learned DR relied on the order of the Tribunal

Yesha Dhirajlal Thakrar, Rajkot vs. The DCIT, NFAC Delhi, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 75/RJT/2023[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot18 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Ld. Cit(A) From Penalty Order Dated 29.01.2022 (Din: Itba/Pnl/F/271(1)(B)/2021-22/1039193062(1)) Passed By Ld. Assessing Officer,Nfac, Delhi(Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 271(1)(B) Of The 1961 Act Levying Penalty Of Rs. 30,000/- Against The Assesse For Non Compliance Of Three Notices Dated 27.07.2021, 06.08.2021 & 16.08.2021 Issued During Reassessment Proceedings , All Three Aforesaid Notices U/S 142(1) Of The 1961 Act. The Proceedings Were Conducted Before Division Bench Through E-Court Through Virtual Hearing Mode.

For Appellant: Shri R D Lalchandani,AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. A.K.Pandey, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 271BSection 56(2)(vii)

Yesha Dhirjla Thakarar v. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi Assessment Year : 2013-14 THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAJKOT BENCH

Shri Sewaram Charitable Trust, Kota vs. ITO, Ward, Exemption, Udaipur

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7/JODH/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur10 Aug 2023AY 2020-21

Section 1Section 11Section 119Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ba)Section 139Section 139(4)Section 139(4)(a)Section 143(1)

various education institutions. The appellant had not filed return of income and audit report in Form 10 B before the due date of section 139(4)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and the same was filed before the end of F.Y. 2020-21 L.e. on 31.03.2021 The appellant ... taxmann.com 225/191 ITD 107 (Chennai - Trib.), ITAT held that where assessee had filed return of income within due date specified under section 139(4) and also filed Form No. 10 electronically before completion of assessment, assessee could not be denied exemption under section 11. Accordingly, in view of the above

Himanshu Education Society, Delhi vs. ITO Ward Exemption 1(2), Delhi

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

ITA 1757/DEL/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Aug 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, AdvFor Respondent: Shri T. James Singson CIT- DR

Section 10Section 11Section 111Section 12ASection 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 4A

Section 12A(ba)of the Act, the claim of the Appellant is maintainable as the return of income has been filed under Section 139(4) of the Act. 5. Without prejudice, the CIT(Appeals) failed to adjudicate that no adjustment was warranted in the present case as the issue

Annapurna Charitable Society, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 98/VIZ/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam10 Aug 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.98/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21) Annapurna Charitable Society, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Visakhapatnam. Exemption Ward, Pan: Aaata 3097 P Visakhapatnam. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR

Section 11Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 4

above mentioned subject stating that while processing of ITR-7 for the A.Y. 2018-19, in respect of the belated returns filed under section 139(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Act), the following is being communicated under section 143(l)(a) of the Act:— "As per section

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam vs. Venkateswara Rao Thotakura, Secunderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 17/VIZ/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam10 Aug 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri I. Kama Sastry, ARFor Respondent: Sri ON Hari Prasada Rao

Section 139(1)Section 154Section 295(1)Section 295(2)Section 90Section 90ASection 91

आयकर अपील"यअ"धकरण, "वशाखापटणम पीठ, "वशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM "ी दु"वू" आर एल

M.P.Re-Cycling Co. Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 488/MUM/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2023AY 2016-2017

Section 139(1)Section 139(9)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

part thereof should be corrected thereof, may furnish the return of income within the time provided u/s. 139(1) in the prescribed form. Section 139(4) provides that if any person has not furnished a return within the time allowed to him u/s.139(1), he may furnish the return

Suresh Kumar Doodi, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Circle-6, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 164/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Sh. Nageswar Rao (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehra (Addl. CIT) a

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 234ASection 90

income under sub-section (1) of section 139. The assessee filed form 67 on 28.01.2019 and return of income on 22.01.2019 under section 139(4) which is applicable in case of filing of return of income after due date. Therefore, the assessee is not eligible for relief u/s 90/90A ... income under sub-section (1) of section 139. The assessee filed form 67 on 28.01.2019 and return of income on 22.01.2019 under section 139(4) which is applicable in case of filing of return of income after due date. Therefore, the assessee is not eligible for relief u/s 90/90A

Sahakari Ganna Vikas Samiti, Uttar Pradesh vs. ITO-2(5) Chandausi, Uttar Pradesh

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2090/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Pradip Kumar Kediasahakari Ganna Vikas Vs. Ito-2(5), Samiti, Sikri Gate Chandausi Chandausi, Sambhal, Uttar Pradesh Uttar Pradesh-244 412 Pan No. Aaaaf 1459 L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Fuzail Ahmad Ayyubi, Adv. Revenue By Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 19.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.07.2023

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(1)(v)Section 154Section 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

Chakargadh Seva Sahakari Mandali Ltd., Chakargadh Seva, Dist. Amreli vs. The DCIT(CPC), Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 187/RJT/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot19 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri D.M. Rindani, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, Ld. Sr. D.R

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 30Section 80Section 801

return of income is not specifically included therein.It was held that that since return of income was filed within due date permissible under section 139(4), in which claim for deduction under section I.T.A No. 187/Rjt/2022 A.Y. 2019-20 Page No 11 Chakargadh Seva Sahakari Mandali Ltd. vs. DCIT

Fishery Survey of India Employees Cooperative Credit and Thrift Society, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, the grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 23/VIZ/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam14 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.23/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2019-20) Fishery Survey Of India Employees Vs. Income Tax Officer Cooperative Credit & Thrift Ward-1(1) Society Visakhapatnam Fishing Harbour Complex Beach Road, Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aafat3533M] अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri C Subrahmanyam, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 27.04.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14.07.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1048861637(1) Dated 17.01.2023 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2019-20, Arising Out Of The Order Passed U/S 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘Act’) Dated 24.12.2020. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, A Society Registered Under The Co-Operative Society Act Had Filed It’S Return Of Income On 2

For Appellant: Shri C Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, DR

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 80P

आयकरअपीलीयअधिकरण, धिशाखापटणम “एसएमसी”पीठ, धिशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM “SMC” BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM श्री दुव्वूरु आर एल रेड्डी

DCIT, Central Circle-4, New Delhi vs. Rohit Bansal, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2178/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.I.T.A. No. 2178/Del/2022 (A.Y. 2017-18)

For Appellant: Department byFor Respondent: Ms. Banita Devi Neorem, CIT DR

Section 115BSection 132Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 292BSection 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [ DELHI BENCH: ‘F’ NEW DELHI ] BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI YOGESH

Shri Lalit Kumar Kalwar, Sarwar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ajmer

ITA 894/JPR/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Devang Gargieya (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT) a

Section 271(1)(c)Section 54F

invested in purchase of plot and construction of residential house before due date of filing of return on 31.03.2014 as per provisions of section 139(4) of the IT Act. It was also submitted that the intention of the assessee was to construct residential house and accordingly the assessee