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)

Anchor Marine Tech Services Pte Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Int. Taxation Circle-1(1)(2), Delhi

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

ITA 951/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri K.M. Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vijay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 44B

Aftar Mannan Shaikh, Mumbai vs. ACIT 31(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3172/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawalaftar Mannan Shaikh, Vs. Acit – 31(1) C-11, 7Th Floor, 12Th Floor, Ee Heights, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, 12Th Floor, Beside Kfc, Bkc (E), Sv Road, Mumbai-400051. Jogeshwari (West), Mumbai-400102.. Pan/Gir No. Benps2128R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By Shri Vimal Punmiya.Ar Revenue By Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 07.08.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 09.08.2024 Order Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: “ The Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre(Nfac), Delhi / Cit(A) Passed U/Sec 143(3) & U/Sec 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 68

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. The Pazhavangadikkara Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd

Appeal is allowed by setting aside the impugned order of the Tribunal and

ITA/12/2019HC Kerala02 Aug 2024

Bench: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.

Section 143(3)Section 186Section 80A(5)Section 80P

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S.the Pazhavangdikkara Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd

ITA/11/2019HC Kerala02 Aug 2024

Bench: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.

Section 143(3)Section 186Section 80A(5)Section 80P

Parekh Market Co-Op. Society Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 27(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 2409/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Aug 2024AY 2021-22
For Appellant: Shri. Mehul ShahFor Respondent: Shri. Kiran Unavekar
Section 139Section 143Section 143(1)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)Section 81

New English School Kelvani Trust, Nadiad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-Exemption, Vadodara

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 197/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 10(23)Section 12ASection 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 80A

Ashok Ra vs. Aheb Tambe, Nashikvs.ITO, Ward 3(1), Nashik

ITA 999/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2017-18 Ashok Ravsaheb Tambe 1630, Mhb Colony, Nr Kamgar Nagar, Kalyan Bhavan, Satpur Colony, Nashik-422007 Pan: Aeypt7687J. . . . . . . . Appellant V/S The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Nashik. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : None For The Assessee Revenue By : Mr Umesh Phade [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 29/07/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 01/08/2024 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; In This Appeal Assessee Challenges Din & Order No. Itba/Apls/S/250/2023- 24/1062404804(1) Dt. 11/03/2024 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’ Hereinafter] By The Addl./Jt Commissioner Of Income Tax Appeals-3, Bengaluru [‘Cit(A)’ Hereinafter] Which In Turn Arisen Out Of Order Of Assessment Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act By The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Nashik [‘Ao’ Hereinafter] For Assessment Year 2017-18 [‘Ay’ Hereinafter];

For Appellant: None for the AssesseeFor Respondent: Mr Umesh Phade [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

Hon Shri Babanrao Pachpute Vichardhara Trust Group of Institution Kashti, Kashti vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Aurangabad

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

ITA 551/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri Prasad R. KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 246ASection 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)

Sheetal Collection, Jalgaon vs. DCIT, Circle-2, Jalgaon

ITA 1074/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2014-15 M/S Sheetal Collection Shop No. 16, Fule Market, Jalgaon-425001 Pan: Acifs1530K. . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2, Jalgaon. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Mr V V Kawdia [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Mr Umashankar Prasad [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 25/07/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 01/08/2024 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; Against Din & Order No. Itba/Apl/S/250/2023-24/1063185555(1) Dt. 22/03/2024 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’ Hereinafter] Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax Appeal-11 Pune [‘Cit(A)’ Hereinafter] Which In Turn Arisen Out Of Order Of Assessment Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act By The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2, Jalgaon [‘Ao’ Hereinafter] Anent To Assessment Year 2014-15 [‘Ay’ Hereinafter] The Assessee Is In Appeal. 2. Tersely Stated The Facts Of The Case Are That; 2.1 The Assessee Is A Partnership Firm & Engaged In Retail Trading Business Of Readymade Garments. During The Year Under Consideration A Survey Action U/S 133A Of The Act On The Assessee Firm Was Carried Out & A Statement Of Its Partner Was Recorded. In Answering To Question Number 16 The Partner Declared/Admitted Certain

For Appellant: Mr V V Kawdia [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Umashankar Prasad [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

M/S. Oriental Components Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 13(1)2, Mumbai

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

ITA 568/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Aug 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhoriental Electrical Components Pvt. Ltd., 75Ab, Government Industrial Estate, Ganesh Nagar, Charkop, Kandivali West Mumbai-400 067 Pan: Aaaco7101M ...... Appellant Vs. Dcit-13(1) (2) Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400020 ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Umang Shah, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri H. M. Bhatt, Ld. DR
Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(43)Section 234ASection 234BSection 246ASection 250

M/S. Oriental Electrical Components Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 13(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 567/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Aug 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhoriental Electrical Components Pvt. Ltd., 75Ab, Government Industrial Estate, Ganesh Nagar, Charkop, Kandivali West Mumbai-400 067 Pan: Aaaco7101M ...... Appellant Vs. Dcit-13(1) (2) Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400020 ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Umang Shah, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri H. M. Bhatt, Ld. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 234ASection 250Section 36(1)(va)

Dhiraj Raman Bhujbal, Pune vs. ITO Ward 3(3) Pune, Pune

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

ITA 908/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148Section 246ASection 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)

Krishna Chaitanya Durgasi, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Eluru

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 255/VIZ/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 Jul 2024AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Balakrishnan, Hon'Blekrishna Chaitanya Durgasi V. Income Tax Officer - Ward – 1 Eluru Flat No. 507, Om Sai Residency Huda Trade Center Behind Punjab National Bank Lingampally, Hyderabad – 500019 Telangana Pan: Ahkpd6655R (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri C. Subrahmanyam, Ar Assessee Represented By : Department Represented By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

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

Krishnakumar Balasankara Subramanian, Bangalore vs. DCIT Circle 3(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 247/BANG/2024[ 2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2024

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Smt. Preeti Goel, A.RFor Respondent: Sri V. Parithivel, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 220(2)Section 234BSection 245Section 90

Sri. Shankar Souhardha Pattina Sahakari Niyamit, Gulbarga vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1& Tps, Gulbarga

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

ITA 1182/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Atul Alur, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sneha Sahai, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 148ASection 156Section 2(24)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69ASection 80P

Century Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Vadodara vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department Present Jurisdiction the DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

ITA 867/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं / Ita No. 867/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Century Pharmaceuticals Ltd., बनाम Assessment Unit, 406, World Trade Centre, Income Tax Department Vs. Sayajigunj, Vadodara Represented Through Gujarat-390005 Dcit, Circle-1(1)(1), Baroda Pan: Aaacc 7646 K अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Shri M.J. Shah & Shri Rushin Patel, Ars िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Hrishikesh Hemant Patki, Sr Dr ""थ" की ओर से / Revenue By: सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24/07/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/07/2024 आदेश/O R D E R The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short Referred To As “Ld. Cit(A)”] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short Referred To As “The Act”] Dated 26.02.2024, Confirming The Levy Of Penalty Of Rs.1,50,000/- U/S 271B Of The Act, For Delayed Furnishing Of Tax Audit Report As Required U/S 44Ab Of The Act, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are Descriptive & Argumentative In Nature. I Am, Therefore, Reproducing Only The Highlighted Portion Of The Grounds Of Appeal Which Are As Follows:- “1. On The Facts & On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of Your Appellant’S Case & In Law, The Honorable Cit-Appeals (Nfac) Has Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Ld. Ao Of Invoking Provision Of Section 271B, In Our Case After The Six Years By Violating The Provision Of The Section 275(1) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Hrishikesh Hemant Patki, Sr DR
Section 139(1)Section 250Section 271Section 271BSection 275(1)Section 44A

Adani Hazira Port Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Known As Adani Hazira Port Private Ltd.), Ahmedabad vs. The AO, CPC, Banglore Present Juridiction the DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 25/AHD/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Jul 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 80C

Adani Petronet( Dahej) Port Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The AO, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 343/AHD/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Jul 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

Yogesh Balwant Patil, Nashik vs. ITO, Ward2(1), Nashik

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

ITA 910/PUN/2024[A.Y 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jul 2024

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.910/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak
Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 246ASection 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)

Shree Krishna Foundation, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Exm Ward 2(3), Mumbai

In the result, an appeal bearing ITA No

ITA 2455/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shriamarjit Singh & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Ms. Rutuja N. PawarFor Respondent: ShriP.D. Choughule (All.CIT) SR DR
Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250