Section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act

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)

Sukiba Management Services Private Limited, Nashik Maharashtra vs. ACIT Circle 1 Nashik, Nashik Maharashtra

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

ITA 1790/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jan 2025AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Department byFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 10Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 438

Cofre Do Fundo Da Cruz Al to De, Bambolim vs. Income Tax Officer, (Exemption) Ward - 1, Panaji

The appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 203/PAN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji28 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliassessment Year : 2017-18 Cofre Do Fundo Da Cruz Alto De Bambolim 101/1, Holy Cross Shrine, Bambolim Gmc Complex, Bambolim, Goa-403202 Pan:Aabtc0675N . . . . . . . Appellant V/S The Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward-1, Panaji. . . . . . . . Respondent

For Appellant: Smt Pratibha R [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Narendra Reddy [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 11Section 119(2)(b)Section 12A(1)(b)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 246A(1)Section 250Section 253(1)

Chanda Devi, Samastipur vs. ITO, Ward- 3 (3), Samastipur

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 355/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna28 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.355/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Chanda Devi……………………….....…..…………………....Appellant C/O Hemant Kumar Gupta, Kalyanpur, Samastipur, Bihar-848302. [Pan: Buopd4526K] Vs. Ito, Ward-3(3), Samastipur..….…….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Abhi Sarkar, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kumar, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 27, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 28, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 30.01.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Engaged In Business Of Cattle Feed. The Assessing Officer Noticed During The Assessment Proceedings That The Assessee Deposited Rs.1979000/- In His Bank Account During Demonetization Period & The Assessee Did Not File Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Within Due Date Prescribed U/S 139(1) Of The Act. Accordingly, The Assessing Officer Issued Notice U/S 142(1) Of The Act Requesting The Assessee To File Return. However, The Assessee Failed To Comply With The Notice As Such

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 208Section 249(4)(b)Section 250

The Vazrapukotturu Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society Limited, Srikakulam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Srikakulam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 439/VIZ/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.439/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2018-19) The Vazrapukotturu Primary V. Ito – Ward – 1 Income Tax Office, Aaykar Bhavan Agricultural Cooperative Credit Palakonda Road, Srikakulam – 532001 Society Limited Andhra Pradesh D.No. 12-3-71, Gandhi Nagar Kasibugga, Palasa, Srikakulam [Pan: Aadat1897J] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 119(2)(b)Section 143(1)Section 80P

Pandalapaka Primary Agricultural Co-Op Society Ltd, East Godavari vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1, Kakinada

ITA 438/VIZ/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: 29.03.2022 After Obtaining Prior Approval From The Pcit, Visakhapatnam 1. In Response, Assessee Submitted Reply Through E-Mail On 24.03.2022 Stating That Assessee Is Eligible For Deduction Under Section 80P Of The Act & Therefore Issuance Of Notice Under Section 148A(A) Of The Act Is Not Warranted. Ld. Ao Did Not Accept The Reply Of The Assessee & Decided That It Is A Fit Case Of Issue Of Notice Under Section 148 Of The Act For The A.Y. 2018-19 & Thereafter Passed Order Under Section 148A(D) Of The Act On 30.03.2022.

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 148ASection 80P

Vengola Service Co Op Bank Ltd, Ernakulam vs. ITO, Ward 2, Aluva

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

ITA 565/COCH/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Keshav Dubey, Jm Assessment Year: 2018-19 Vengola Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. .......... Appellant 13/621 Ab, Kunnathunadu Vengola P.O., Ernakulam 683556 [Pan: Aaaav1709N] Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Ward - 2, Aluva Appellant By: Shri Lokanathan R., Ca Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 06.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.01.2025

For Appellant: Shri Lokanathan R., CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 270ASection 80ASection 80A(5)Section 80P

Kanichukulangara Service Co Operative Bank Limited, Kanichukulangara vs. ITO, Ward 2, Alappuzha

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

ITA 653/COCH/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Keshav Dubey, Jm Assessment Year: 2017-18 Kanichukulangara Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. .......... Appellant Kanichukulangara, Alappuzha 688544 [Pan: Aacak2630D] Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Ward - 5, Alappuzha Appellant By: ------- None ------- Respondent By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.01.2025

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 142Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 80ASection 80A(5)Section 80P

S. Kalpana, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-5(1), Chennai

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

ITA 2902/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal invoking Section 249(3) of the Act on account of the delay of 817 days in filing appeal without going into the merits of the case. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal.

For Appellant: Shri P. Ranga Ramanujan and ShriFor Respondent: Shri. Shri M. Rajan, CIT
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 249(3)Section 69A

Sree Basaweshwar Vyasaya Seva Sahakari Bank Limited Devihosur, Haveri vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Haveri

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2395/BANG/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jan 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Years: 2022-23

For Appellant: Shri Prasanna Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Dept
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 80ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

Income Tax Officer Ward-2, Chandrapur vs. Nitin Subhash Sharma, Chandrapur

In the result, appeals by the Revenue for the A

ITA 364/NAG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur27 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 148Section 194CSection 44A

Income Tax Officer Ward-2, Chandrapur vs. Nitin Subhash Sharma, Chandrapur

In the result, appeals by the Revenue for the A

ITA 363/NAG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur27 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 148Section 194CSection 44A

Income Tax Officer Ward-2, Chandrapur vs. Nitin Subhash Sharma, Chandrapur

In the result, appeals by the Revenue for the A

ITA 362/NAG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur27 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 148Section 194CSection 44A

Cochin Shipyard Employees Mutual and Public Welfare Trust, Cochin vs. ITO, Exemption Ward, Kochi

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

ITA 249/COCH/2024[AY 2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 Jan 2025

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm

For Appellant: Shri K.T. Mohanan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 11Section 119(2)(b)Section 12Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)

Cochin Shipyard Employees Muthual and Public Welfare Trust, Perumanur vs. Office of the Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward, Kochi

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

ITA 248/COCH/2024[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 Jan 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm

For Appellant: Shri K.T. Mohanan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 11Section 119(2)(b)Section 12Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)

Pani Purvatha Karmachari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit Kolhapur, Kolhapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Kolhapur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2663/PUN/2024[AY 2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jan 2025

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2663/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Pani Purvatha Karmachari V The Income Tax Officer, Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit S Kolhapur. Kolhapur, 431-E Tej Apartment, Basant – Bahar Road, Shahupuri, Kolhapur – 416001. Pan: Aaaap1588M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri Harshit Dilip Bari – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 23/01/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27/01/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed U/Sec.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, For The A.Y.2018-19 Dated 21.11.2024. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 139(1)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

Mont Vert 2 Co-Operative Housing Society Limited, Sus Road Pashan, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward2(2), Pune, Swargate

Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2662/PUN/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jan 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripote

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

Jsw Minerals Trading Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 5(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6137/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jan 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Ms.Deepa Khare,ARFor Respondent: Ms. Neena Jeph, (CIT DR)
Section 115BSection 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 234B

M/S. the Metropolitan Premises Co-Op Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 23(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal bearing ITA No

ITA 3716/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankarm/S. The Metropolitan Vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward 23(2)(1), Premises Co-Op Society Ltd, Mumbai, C.26/27, Block-E, The Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug, Mumbai- Metropolitan Prem.Co-Op. 400 012 Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 051 Pan: Aaaat8898E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mrs. Rupal Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, SR DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 249(2)Section 250Section 80P(2)(d)

Shree Revanasiddeshwara Pattina Sahakari Sangh Niyamit Rampur, Bagalkot vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Bagalkot

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

ITA 1740/BANG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jan 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Years: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Pranav Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Dept
Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 80ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

Dharmendra Kumar Singh, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1661/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1661/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20

Section 139(1)Section 154Section 90