Which cases are most cited on Section 139(1)?

CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (359 ITR 565) — 2,590 citing judgments; CIT v. AIMIL Ltd. (321 ITR 508) — 1,629 citing judgments; Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (143 Taxmann.com 178) — 1,392 citing judgments; CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (366 ITR 170) — 1,158 citing judgments; CIT v. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders (349 ITR 336) — 956 citing judgments.

How many judgments are there on Section 139(1)?

BharatTax indexes 8,117 ITAT, High Court and Supreme Court judgments that turn on Section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act

Q: What is the leading case on Section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act?

CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (359 ITR 565) is the decision most relied on for Section 139(1), cited in 2,590 judgments. A penalty notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) is invalid if it fails to specify whether the penalty proceedings are initiated for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. This non-specification vitiates the penalty proceedings.

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.263

Section 139(1) falls under section 139 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which corresponds to section 263 (Return of income) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 263 of the 2025 Act

Correspondence checked against the ICAI tabular mapping of the two Acts and the BharatTax.co section commentary.

The decision most relied on for Section 139(1) is CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (359 ITR 565), cited in 2,590 of the 8,117 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 139(1)

CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory

359 ITR 565 · 2013 · High Court

2,590

citing judgments

A penalty notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) is invalid if it fails to specify whether the penalty proceedings are initiated for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. This non-specification vitiates the penalty proceedings.

CIT v. AIMIL Ltd.

321 ITR 508 · 2010 · High Court

1,629

citing judgments

Employee contributions to PF and ESIC, deposited beyond the due date under the respective Acts but within the due date for filing the income tax return under Section 139(1), are allowable deductions under Section 36(1)(va). Such disallowance cannot be made during processing under Section 143(1).

Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT

143 Taxmann.com 178 · 2022 · Supreme Court

1,392

citing judgments

Employee contributions to provident fund and ESI deposited by an employer beyond the due dates prescribed under the respective special Acts are not allowable as a deduction under section 36(1)(va) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Such disallowance can be made during processing under section 143(1).

CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation

366 ITR 170 · 2014 · High Court

1,158

citing judgments

Employees' contributions to welfare funds, such as provident fund, are not allowable as a deduction under section 36(1)(va) if deposited beyond the due date prescribed under the respective welfare statutes, even by a single day. Such delayed deposits are not cured even if made before the income-tax return filing due date.

CIT v. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders

349 ITR 336 · 2012 · High Court

956

citing judgments

Appellate authorities can entertain fresh claims or revised computations of income made by an assessee, even if these were not submitted through a revised return of income.

CIT v. SSA’s Emerald Meadows

73 Taxmann.com 241 · 2016 · High Court

791

citing judgments

A penalty notice under section 271(1)(c) read with section 274 of the Income Tax Act is invalid if it fails to specify whether the penalty is for concealment of income or for furnishing incorrect particulars of income.

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.

(i) CIT v. Merchem Ltd.

378 ITR 443 · 2015 · High Court

631

citing judgments

Belated remittance of employees' contribution to ESI and PF, even if deposited before the due date for filing the return of income under Section 139(1), is not allowed as a deduction. This disallowance falls under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x), as Section 43B applies only to employer's contributions.

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.

CIT v. Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd.

368 ITR 749 · 2014 · High Court

609

citing judgments

Deduction for employees' contributions to PF and ESIC is allowable under Section 43B if paid before the due date for filing the return under Section 139(1); similarly, delayed deposits of employers' contributions to ESIC and PF are also allowable.

Judgments on Section 139(1)

Endel Retail and Customer Care Private Limited, Ambawadi, Ahmedabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Vejalpur, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1204/AHD/2026[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Aug 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice- & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Thakker, ARFor Respondent: Shri Deependra Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 234BSection 90

Sree Sree Annapurna Devi Thakurani and Others, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 29(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1710/KOL/2026[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Aug 2026AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250

S A Gadagi, Ron vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward I, Gadag

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1629/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Aug 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri S.A. Gadag Ron, A.RFor Respondent: Sri N. Balusamy, JCIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 250(6)Section 270A

R K Educational Trust, Delhi vs. ITO Ward Exemption 2 (4), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 5922/DEL/2026[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Aug 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Shri Sanjay Awasthiassessment Year: 2022-23 M/S R.K. Educational Trust, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 8A/8, Western Extension Area, Karol Bagh, Ward 20(3), New Delhi, Delhi 110005. Central Revenue Building, Pan No. Aactr1512Q New Delhi 110002. Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri A.K. Srivastava, Ca Revenue By Shri Tarun Sharda, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.08.2026 Pronouncement On 24.08.2026 O R D E R Per Sanjay Awasthi: 1. This Appeal Arises From Order Dated 28.03.2026, Passed By Ld. Addl./Jcit(Appeals), Aurangabad, U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereafter As “The Act”).

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

Globe Ground India Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-10(1), Delhi

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 2411/DEL/2026[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Aug 2026AY 2017-18

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250

Aarti Sachdev, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-44(6), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1763/DEL/2026[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Aug 2026AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Sanjay Awasthiassessment Year: 2024-25 Aarti Sachdev, Vs Income Tax Officer, Flat-112, First Floor, Prateek Apartment, . Income Tax Office, Dda Lig Flat, Block A-2, Paschim Vihar, Ward 44(6), Civic Centre, New Delhi, Delhi 110063. New Delhi, Delhi 110002. Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Puneet Sachdev, Ca Revenue By Shri Balkrishan Gopal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 08.07.2026 Pronouncement On 24.08.2026 O R D E R Per Sanjay Awasthi: 1. This Appeal Arises From Order Dated 18.02.2026, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereafter As “The Act”), By Ld. Addl./Jcit(Appeals)-2, Pune.

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250

ACIT, Mumbai vs. Genext Hardware and Parks Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue‟s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 6208/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice (Retd.) C. V. Bhadang & Shri Prabhash Shankarassistant Commissioner Of V/S. Genext Hardware & Income Tax, Central Circle – बनाम Parks Private Limited 4(2), Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Plot No. C-30, G Block, Raheja Bandra (East), Mumbai – Tower, Bandra Kurla Complex, 400051, Maharashtra Bkc, Mumbai – 400 051, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaccg5567F Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी प्रत्याक्षेपसं./C.O. No.200/Mum/2026 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 6208/Mum/2025) (A.Y. 2017-18) Genext Hardware & Parks V/S. Assistant Commissioner Of Private Limited बनाम Income Tax, Central Circle – Plot No. C-30, G Block, Raheja 4(2), Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Tower, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai – Bkc, Mumbai – 400 051, 400051, Maharashtra Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaccg5567F Appellant/अपीलाथी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी Assessee By Shri Madhur Aggarwal,Advocate Revenue By Shri Basavaraj Hiremath,Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 17.06.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 24.08.2026 आदेश / O R D E R Per Prabhash Shankar [A.M.] :- The Instant Appeal Preferred By The Revenue & Cross Objection Of The Assessee Emanate From The Order Passed By The Learned

Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 22Section 32

Rupee Soren L/H of Shibu Soren, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle 6, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITSSA 100/DEL/1997[01/04/1986 to 26/04/1996]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Aug 2026

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Sanjay Awasthi, Hon’Bleit(Ss) A No. 100/Del/1997 Block Period : 1.04.1986 To 26.04.1996 Shibu Soren Through Vs. Acit, Cc-6, New Delhi Rupee Soren Legal Heir Of Shibu Soren) Vill-Nemra Po Barlanga Ps Barlanga Jharkhand-829110 (Pan: Asnps4286P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Sr. Adv., Shri Shailesh Gupta, Ca, Shri Uma Shankar, Adv & Shri Madhur Agarwal, Adv. (Vc) Respondent By : Shri K. Hauthang, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 17.08.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 21.08.2026 Order Per Mahavir Singh: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Block Assessment Order Framed By The Acit, Cc-6, Delhi For The Block Period 1.4.1986 To 26.4.1996 U/S. 158Bc Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As Act) Vide His Order Dated 29.4.1997. 2. The First Issue In This Appeal Of The Assessee Is As Regards To Assumption Of Jurisdiction For Farming Of Assessment U/S. 158Bc Without Issuing Notice U/S. 143(2) Of The Act After Filing Of Return Of Income For The Block Period In Terms Of Notice U/S. 158Bc Of The Act. For This Assessee Has Raised The Ground No. 2 Vide Concise Grounds Of Appeal, Which Reads As Under:- “2. That The Impugned Assessment Farmed By The Learned Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-6, Is Without Jurisdiction As No Notice U/S. 143(2) Of The Income Tax Act, Was Issued & Served After Assessee Had Filed Its Return Of Undisclosed Income In Pursuance To Notice Issued U/S. 158Bc Of The Act.”

For Appellant: Shri Salil Agarwal, Sr. Adv., Shri Shailesh GuptaFor Respondent: Shri K. Hauthang, CIT(DR)

Section 127Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 158Section 158B

Balaji Educational & Cultural Trust, Belagavi vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward 1, Panaji

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 8/PAN/2026[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji21 Aug 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.08/Pan/2026 Assessment Year: 2023-24 Balaji Educational & Vs. Income Tax Officer, Cultural Trust, Exemption Ward-1, Cts No.1598, Panaji Near Dutch Industrial Estate, Channammanagar, Angol, Belagavi – 590 006 Karnataka Pan : Aactb1137D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Mudnur, CAFor Respondent: Shri Naveen Kumar B, CIT-DR

Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)