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)

Pankaj Nauriyal, Foreign vs. DCIT International Tax, Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITITA 22/DEL/2026[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jul 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Vikas Awasthy & Sh. Naveen Chandrait(It)A No. 22/Del/2026 (Assessment Year : 2019-20) Pankaj Nauriyal Vs. Dcit 21321, Snag Island Drive E, International Tax Lake Tapps, 98391 Civic Centre, Minto Road Washington, Usa -983 910 Delhi – 110 002 Pan No. Aftpn 3182 L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Vaibhav Chaudhry, C.A. Shri Raj Chauhan, C.A. & Shri Gagan, Adv. Revenue By Shri Surender Kumar Jatav, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 07.07.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.07.2026

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 272A(1)(d)Section 274

Bbc Studios Distribution Limited, United Kingdom vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle International Tax 1(1)(2), New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITITA 166/DEL/2026[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jul 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Sh. Vikas Awasthy & Sh. Naveen Chandrait(It)A Nos. 164, 165 & 166/Del/2026 (Assessment Years : 2021-22, 2022-23 & 2023-24) Bbc Studios Distribution Vs. Dcit Ltd. International Taxation 1 Television Centre, Circle-1(1)(2) 101 Wood Lane, London Civic Centre, Minto Road W 12 7Fa, United Kingdom New Delhi -110 002 999 999 Pan No. Aaccb 5285 F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri M. P. Lohia, Adv., Shri Ashish Agarwal (Vc) Shri Anurag Singhal, Cas Revenue By Shri Rajesh Dhingra, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 14.07.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.07.2026 Order Per Naveen Chandra:

Section 143(1)Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 9

Bbc Studios Distribution Limited, United Kingdom vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle International Tax 1(1)(2), New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITITA 165/DEL/2026[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jul 2026AY 2022-23

Section 143(1)Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 9

Bbc Studios Distribution Limited, United Kingdom vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle International Tax 1(1)(2), New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITITA 164/DEL/2026[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jul 2026AY 2021-22

Section 143(1)Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 9

Dharmeshkumar Parsottambhai Ukani, Surat vs. Dy. CIT, Central Circle-4, Surat

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

ITA 1398/SRT/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Jul 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Or In The Course Of Hearing Of The Appeal."

Section 129Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 69

Irayya Shidramayya Hirematha, Vijayapura vs. The Income Tax Officer(AO), Ward 1 & Tps Bijapur, Vijayapura

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1115/BANG/2026[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jul 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: AEKPH6113F

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148

Jamewaar Apparels Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - Circle 7(1)(1), Koramangala

Accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1006/BANG/2026[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jul 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 234BSection 234C

Modern Furniture, Na vs. Arivs.ITO, Ward-3, Navsari

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 55/SRT/2026[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat24 Jul 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 55/Srt/2026 [ "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 ] Modern Furniture, Income Tax Officer, Atlanta Building, Khergam Road, Vs. Ward-3,206, Income Tax Chikhli Tal Chikhli Dist Navsari, Office, Char Pool, Avabaug, Gujarat-396521 Navsari, Gujarat -396445 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaefm2443B (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rajesh Upadhyay, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Ajay Uke, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14/05/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 24/07/2026 :: Order :: Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2012- 13, Is Directed Against The Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) By Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Delhi, Dated 12.12.2025, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Act, On 03.12.2019. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: 1. Ld. Addl/Jcit[A]-2, Has Erred In Law & On Facts To Upheld A.O.'S Reopening U/S 147 & Issue Of Notice U/S 148 Of The Act. 2. Ld. Addl/Jcit[A]-2, Has Erred In Law & On Facts To Confirm Addition Of Rs.2,19,621/-, Being 10% Estimate Of N.P. On Assessee'S Business Turnover Of Rs.21,96,215/-, Without Any Basis & Ignoring The Provisions Of Section 44Ad/44Af Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Upadhyay, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 145Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 44A

Varaha Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Educational Trust, Visakhapatnam vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemption Circle, Vijayawada

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

ITA 216/VIZ/2026[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam24 Jul 2026AY 2022-23

Section 11Section 119(2)(b)Section 12A(1)(b)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

Aasha Chandiran, Erode vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Erode

ITA 1382/CHNY/2026[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jul 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Honourable George George K & Shri Gagan Goyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1382/Chny/2026 ननिाजरण वर्ज /Assessment Years: 2020-21 Aasha Chandiran V. Income Tax Officer, No.929/589 A Main Road, Ward-2(1), Indira Mess, Bhavani, Erode, Erode. Tamil Nadu-638 301. [Pan: Awbpa0792J] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Ms. G. Vardini Karthik, Advocate, Ld. Ar प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Mr. Beesam Narasing Rao, Jcit Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23.06.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.07.2026 आदेश / O R D E R Per Gagan Goyal, Am: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A) / Nfac (Hereinafter Referred As The ‘Ld.Cit(A)’), Dated 12.01.2026 For The Assessment Year (Hereinafter Referred As The ‘Ay’) 2020-21. Grounds Of Appeal Return Filed In Response To Notice Under Section 148 Is A Valid Return Under Section 139(1) 1. The Respondent Ought To Have Appreciated That The Amendment Providing That A Return Filed In Response To A Notice Under Section 148 Shall Not Be Treated An Invalid Return Under Section 139(1) Was Introduced Only With Effect From 01.04.2022. Aasha Chandiran 2. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Failed To Appreciate That The Assessing Officer Had Erroneously Rejected The Return Filed By The Appellant In Response To Notice U/S 148 For The Reason That The Income Admitted By The Appellant Was Substantially Lower Than The Information Available With The Department.

For Appellant: Ms. G. Vardini Karthik, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Beesam Narasing Rao, JCIT

Section 139(1)Section 148

Satara Zilha Sahakari Patsanstha Federation Limited, Satara vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Satara

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

ITA 1347/PUN/2026[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Jul 2026AY 2022-2023

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

Section 119(2)(b)Section 80A

Built Up, Pune vs. Assessing Officer, ADIT CPC Banglore

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

ITA 691/PUN/2026[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Jul 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.691/Pun/2026 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Built Up, Vs. Adit, Cpc, Bangalore. Flat No.1, Samda Apartments, Dr. Ketkar Marg, Near Ghodke Chowk, Pune- 411004. Pan : Aaefb6432D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. L. Jain Revenue By : Shri Sandip Pawar (Virtual) Date Of Hearing : 25.06.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.07.2026 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.09.2025 Passed By Ld. Addl./Jcit(A), Jodhpur [‘Ld. Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. There Is Delay Of 76 Days In Filing Of The Present Appeal. We Are Satisfied With The Reasons Mentioned In The Application For Condonation Of Delay Duly Supported By An Affidavit That The Applicant Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause For Not Filing The Appeal

For Appellant: Shri V. L. JainFor Respondent: Shri Sandip Pawar (Virtual)

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 80I

Vijaya Jyothi Tallapaka, Hyderabad vs. ITO (Intl Taxation)-2, Hyderabad

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

ITA 508/HYD/2026[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Jul 2026AY 2017-18

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 69

J 305 Kodavalivaripalem Primary Agricultural Co- Op Society, Bapatla vs. ITO, Ward-1, Ongole

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for A

ITA 1869/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Jul 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed An Affidavit Explaining The Reasons For The Delay. The Learned Counsel For The Assessee, Shri Lakshmi Narasimha, C.A., Referring To The Affidavit Filed By The Assessee, Submitted That The Impugned Order Passed By The Learned Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi, Was Received By The Assessee & The Appeals Could Not Be Filed Within The Prescribed Period, Resulting In A Delay Of 7 Days In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal.

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 80P(2)(a)

J 305 Kodavalivari Palem Primary Agricultural Co-Op Society, Bapatla vs. ITO, Ward-1, Ongole

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for A

ITA 1868/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Jul 2026AY 2018-19

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 80P(2)(a)

Kalaikar Kafeel Ahmed, Vellore vs. ITO, Ward-3, Vellore

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

ITA 895/CHNY/2026[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jul 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviिनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Kalaikar Kafeel Ahmed Ito, Ward-3, 54, Jawahar Street, Vellore-635751. Vaniyambadi,, Vellore- Vs. 635751, Tamil Nadu अपीलाथ" Appellant ""थ" Respondent

For Appellant: DIJPK1209P

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 251Section 69A

Fourcceess Diamonds Pirvate Limited, Chennai vs. ITO Corp. Ward 2(1).Com, Chennai

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

ITA 374/CHNY/2026[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jul 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.374/Chny/2026 ननिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Fourceess Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. The Income Tax Officer New No.220, Old No.128 Vs. Corporate Ward 2(1) Golden Complex, 3Rd Floor, Chennai. Nsc Bose Road, Sowcarpet Chennai – 600 079. [Pan: Aabcf3371M] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By : Dr. Abhishek Murali, Ca प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : Pelli Prem Kumar, Sr.Ar

For Appellant: Dr. Abhishek Murali, CAFor Respondent: Pelli Prem Kumar, Sr.AR

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 68