← 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)

Poonam Property Chs Ltd, Mumbai vs. CPC/ITO, 22(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed with a direction to A

ITA 552/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalpoonam Property Chs Ltd. B-2, Poonam Properties Chs Ltd. Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai-400018 Pan: Aaaap2735Q ...... Appellant Vs. Cpc/Ito-22(2)(1), 3Rd Floor, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Mumbai-400020. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. N.R. Agarwal Respondent By : Sh. Ashish Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 07/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 19/09/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As (‘Cit(A)] Dated 05.11.20218 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 20,85,481/- For Which Deduction Was Claimed U/S. 80P(2)(D) For Interest Earned From Co-Op. Bank.”

For Appellant: Sh. N.R. AgarwalFor Respondent: Sh. Ashish Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 10ASection 139Section 139(4)Section 142Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)Section 89

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL

The Dadabhai Kavasji Tata School Trust, Na

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1637/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Sept 2022AY 2015-16
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 12A(1)(B)Section 12A(1)(b)Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 44A

income on 30.3.2017. The assessment year under consideration is A.Y. 2015-16 and the due date prescribed for filing return belatedly under section 139(4) is on 31.3.2017. The assessee has filed return on 30.3.2017. The AO has passed the assessment order on the above said belated return filed

Archana Foundation, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Exemptions 1(1), Piramal Chambers Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1431/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyalarchana Foundation More House 28, New India Housing Society North South Road No.11, Jvpd, Juhu, Mumbai-400049. Pan: Aabta0873E ...... Appellant Vs. Ito (Exemption)-1(1), Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Mumbai-400012. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Amit Agrawal Respondent By : Sh. Pramod Nikalje Date Of Hearing : 13/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 05/09/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M:

For Appellant: Sh. Amit AgrawalFor Respondent: Sh. Pramod Nikalje
Section 11(1)Section 11(2)Section 12A

available because such filing would be considered within time 6 ITA No. 1431/Mum/2021-Archana Foundation allowed for furnishing return of income under section 139(4) - Held, yes [Paras 12 & 13][In favour of assessee] [2019] 111 taxmann.com 272 (Mumbai - Trib.) Shree Dadar Jain v. Income-tax Officer (E), Mumbai Income

Sri. M. Nagaraja, Mysore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 2(1), Mysore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1905/BANG/2019[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Sept 2022AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 1999-2000

For Respondent: Shri S. Parthasarathi
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 139(5)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 234BSection 263

declaring income of Rs.46,20,677/-. The return filed on 22.03.2022 was neither a return under Section 139(1) nor under Section 139(4) of the Act. Further, no notice under Section 148 was issued then. Accordingly, the return filed was non est in the eye of law. Thus

The ACIT Cent. Cir -5(4), Mumbai vs. Shri Nitan Chhatwal, Mumbai

In the result, the both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2244/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Sept 2022AY 2015-16
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” Bench, Mumbai Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal (JM) I.T.A. No. 1571/Mum/2021 (A.Y

ACIT Cent. Cir -5(4), Mumbai vs. Shri Nitan Chhatwal, Mumbai

In the result, the both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2243/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Sept 2022AY 2013-14
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” Bench, Mumbai Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal (JM) I.T.A. No. 1571/Mum/2021 (A.Y

Arvind R Anand, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO 28(1)(2), Navi Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 530/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyalarvind R. Anand, Flat No. 15/16, Kuber Chsl, Plot No. 141, Sector-17, Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400703. Pan: Ahxpa1480G ...... Appellant Vs. Ito-28(1)(2), 306, 3Rd Floor, Tower No.6, Vashi Railway Station Complex, Vash, Navi Mumbai-400703. ..... Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Sh. Mehul Jain Date Of Hearing : 02/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/08/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Mehul Jain
Section 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 41(1)Section 68

note below) Rs.33,12,000/- 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income on 31.03.2014 under section 139(4) of the Act declaring total income of Rs. 4,61,563/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and notices under section

Amasebail Vyvasaya Seva Sahakari Sangha Limited, Udupi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 537/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh R. Uppin, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 119Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 148Section 80ASection 80A(5)Section 80P

granted if eligible. 20. Here, questions would arise as to whether belated returns filed beyond the period stipulated under section 139(1) or section 139(4) as well as following sections 142(1) and 148 proceedings could be considered for exemption. If those returns are eligible to be accepted

M/S. Shri Mahishasuramardini Urban Co-Operative Credit Society Limited, Haveri vs. Income Tax Officer, Wrd-1, Haveri

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

ITA 566/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Sri.Vishal S Rao, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Ganesh R.Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 234ASection 234BSection 69ASection 80P(2)(a)

granted if eligible. 20. Here, questions would arise as to whether belated returns filed beyond the period stipulated under section 139(1) or section 139(4) as well as following sections 142(1) and 148 proceedings could be 16 ITA No.566/Bang/2022. Sri Mahishasuramanrdini Urban Co-op Cr.So.Ltd. considered for exemption

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-6(2)(1), Bangalore vs. Sri C Gangadhara Murthy, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2400/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuthe Dy. Commissioner Of Vs Shri C. Gangadhara Murthy Income-Tax, No. 322, 3Rd A Corss, 2Nd Block Circle - 6(2)(1) 3Rd Stage, Basaveshwaranagar Bangalore . Bangalore 560079. Pan – Agipg 2668 N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 2

Appeal No 870 of 2007 dated July 4, 2007 held that where, for AY 1997-98 return of income was filed under section 139(4) on March 15 , 2000, and notice under section 143(2) for framing assessment under section 143(3) could have been issued upto March ... issued notice under section 148 when a valid return under section 139(4) was pending, such notice was invalid as no action could have been initiated under section 147 in view of pendency of return before AO. In the case of Trustees of H. E.H. the Nizam's Supplemental Family

M/S. Nath Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle-1(3) (1), Mumbai

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

ITA 832/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2022AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri N. R. AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Chetan M. Kacha (Sr. AR)
Section 119Section 139(5)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, AM

Mahesh K. Faria, Mumbai vs. DCIT (OSD) -II Cen RG 7, Mumbai

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

ITA 3806/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2022AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Ms. Hiral SejpalFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma (DR) & Ms
Section 124(3)Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144ASection 153A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, AM

M/S. Hyagreeva Hotels & Resorts Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 3, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 167/BANG/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jul 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Deepesh Wagle, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 10ASection 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 80ASection 80I

dates specified under" Section 139 (1) of the Act, there is no question of referring to the extended period permitted under Section 139(4) of the Act to seek the benefit. Indeed, if the embargo were not as strict as is evident from the relevant provision, the entirety of Section

M/S. Hyagreeva Hotels & Resorts Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 3, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 166/BANG/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jul 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Deepesh Wagle, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 10ASection 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 80ASection 80I

dates specified under" Section 139 (1) of the Act, there is no question of referring to the extended period permitted under Section 139(4) of the Act to seek the benefit. Indeed, if the embargo were not as strict as is evident from the relevant provision, the entirety of Section

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5(2)(1), Bangalore vs. Shri Bollineni Guruppa Naidu, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by revenue stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2812/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2015-16 Shri Bollinni The Deputy Gurappa Naidu, Commissioner Of No. 42, 3Rd Block, Income Tax, 6Th Cross, Circle 3(1)(1), Thyagraj Nagar, Bangalore. Vs. Bangalore – 560 028. Pan: Ahkpb8977G Appellant Respondent : Shri Narendra Sharma, Assessee By Advocate : Shri Srinivas Rao Bandaru, Revenue By Jcit Dr Date Of Hearing : 12-07-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 12-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against Order Dated 20/07/2018 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-5, Bangalore For A.Y. 2015-16 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Under: 2.1 Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For A.Y. 2015-16 On 31.03.2017 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.22,20,040/-. The Case Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny Through Cass & The Statutory

For Respondent: Shri Narendra Sharma
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 54Section 54F

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL

M/S. G M Fabrics P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT -9(3)(2), Mumbai

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1095/MUM/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm M/S G.M. Fabrics P. Ltd. Dy. Cit Ground Floor, -9(3)(2) Dhana Singh Compound, Room No. 418, 4Th Floor, Andheri Kurla Road, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Jb Nagar, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 058 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaach 2821 F

For Appellant: Ms Ritika Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang B. Irani, DR
Section 139(4)Section 139(9)Section 140ASection 221Section 221(1)Section 234B

credit of MAT claimed was not correctly computed and therefore revise return was to be filed. 07. On 19/01/2018, assessee filed return under Section 139(4) of the Act at the same total income, however, claimed MAT credit of ₹1,18,34,786/- and balance tax liability was worked ... assessee submitted that there is no default as the self-assessment tax as determined in the return of income under Section 139(4) of the Act has been paid. 010. The learned Assessing Officer rejected the contention of the assessee and on 14 May 2018 passed an order under Section

M/S. Mother Earth Environ Tech Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-4(1)(4), Bengaluru

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

ITA 276/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Sri Mahesh Kumar L., A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Besaganni, D.R
Section 139Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 80I

Honourable Supreme court. Legal Issue 2 -Revised Return steps into shoes of original return, for all purpose. 2. The revised return filed under section 139(4) within extended due date, by rectifying the defect in original return filed within due date under section 13911), substitutes the original return from ... only as discretionary condition as held by supreme court). Legal Issue 4- relating to applicability of Department circular. 5. Rectification of return under section 139(4), has to be interpreted in accordance with the intention made out vide Department /Board's Circular No. 669 dated 25-10-1993 read with

Purusottam Lenka, Mumbai vs. ACIT (CPC), Bangalore

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

ITA 2146/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyalpurusottam Lenka, C-603, Sanskrut Apartment, Raj Hans Cinema, Dumas Road, Surat, Gujarat-395007 Pan: Aampl1047J ...... Appellant Vs. Acit (Cpc), Central Circle-1(2), Bangalore. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Suresh Kabra, Ca Respondent By : Sh. Jagdish Jangid, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 17/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 03/06/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-47, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Cit(A)’] Vide Order Dated 27.01.2021 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. The Ld Cit(A) Has Erred On The Facts Of The Case & In Law By Not Allowing Credit Of Tds Deducted By The Employer But Not Deposited To Government Account. Nil. 2. Prayer 2.1 The Credit For Tds Rs. 1,55,610/- May Kindly Be Allowed. 2.2 Personal Hearing May Be Granted

For Appellant: Sh. Suresh Kabra, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Jagdish Jangid, CIT-DR
Section 139(4)Section 143(1)

deem fit may be granted. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income on 10.03.2018 under section 139(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) declaring income of Rs. 12,53,910/- against which his employer M/s ABG Shipyard

Lekha Pariksha Vibhag Karmchari Sahakari Patsanstha Ltd, Thane vs. CPC, Bangalore

In the result, we do not find any merit in the Writ Petition, the same is therefore dismissed

ITA 268/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jun 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Us. We Find That The Said Delay Has Been Properly

Section 10BSection 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 80ASection 80P

assessee is required to file the return within the due date prescribed u/s 139(1) of the Act. It is noted that section 139(4) of the Act was existing when section 80AC of the Act was brought in the statute and thus, the legislature was conscious of this fact

Rani Jagdish Sahdevan, Mumbai vs. ITO 25 (3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid findings

ITA 162/MUM/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Ajay SinghFor Respondent: Shri Chandra Vijay, CIT–DR
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 54Section 54(2)

139‖ under section 54(2) of the Act should be liberally construed to even include due date of filing return of income under section 139(4) of the Act. In support of his submissions, learned A.R. placed reliance on various decisions rendered by the Co–ordinate Bench of the Tribunal ... case the amount has been utilised for the purchase of new asset prior to the due date of filing return of income under section 139(4) of the Act and accordingly eligible for benefit under section 54 of the Act. 7. On the other hand, Shri Chandra Vijay, the learned