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)

Ajit Kumar Singh, Patna vs. DCIT/Ac, Circle-4, Patna

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 72/PAT/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna24 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 72/Pat/2021 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Ajit Kumar Singh Dc/Ac, Circle-4, Patna Geeta Mansion, Gujral Path Vs Nalapar, P.O. Keshrinagar Rajivnagar Patna - 800024 [Pan : Algps9902G] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Somil Agarwal, C.A. Revenue By : Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra, Jcit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06/05/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 05/08/2021, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act’), For Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Sole Issue Involved In This Appeal Is Regarding The Disallowance U/S 36(1)(Va) Of The Act On Account Of Delayed Payment Of Employees’ Contribution To Pf & Esi Of Rs.1,80,45,483/-, Made By The Ld. Assessing Officer As Confirmed By The Ld. Cit(A). 3. We Have Heard Rival Contentions & Perused The Material Placed Before Us. The Sole Issue Involved In This Appeal Is Relating To The Disallowance Of Rs. 1,80,45,483/- Made By The Assessing Officer/Cpc U/S 36(1)(Va) Of The Act, On Account Of Delay In Deposit Of Employees’ Contribution To Pf & Esi. It Remains An Admitted Fact

For Appellant: Shri Somil Agarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra, JCIT, D/R
Section 139(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Dipen Hasmukhbhai Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-1(3)(1) (New) Previously Ward-1(3)(2), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 907/AHD/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Respondent by : Shri Purshottam Kumar, Sr. D.RFor Respondent: Shri Purshottam Kumar, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148

Samar Biri Factory, Siliguri vs. A.O., Assessment Unit, Bengaluru

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

ITA 582/KOL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Jun 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 582/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Samar Biri Factory Assessing Officer, Assessment Unit Aurobindopally Vs Siliguri - 734006 [Pan : Aaofs7941N] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sujit Basu & Rajib Mukherjee, Advocate Revenue By : Shri G. Ajay Robin Singh, Jcit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12/06/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 19/02/2024, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. Though The Assessee Has Raised Various Grounds Of Appeal But The Main Contention Of The Assessee Is That On Account Of The Death Of The Key Person Of The Assessee Firm, No One Could Appear Before The Ld. Assessing Officer And, Thereafter When The Appeal Was Filed Before The Ld. Cit(A), The Same Was Dismissed On Account Of Delay In Filing The Appeal. It Was Prayed That Since High Pitched Assessment Has Been Made In The Case Of Assessee By The Ld. Assessing Officer & Assessee Had No Opportunity To Furnish The Details, The Issues On Merits May Be Restored To The File Of The Ld. Assessing Officer For De Novo Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri Sujit Basu & Rajib Mukherjee, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Ajay Robin Singh, JCIT, Sr. D/R
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 69C

M/S. Rpl Projects Limited, Kolkata vs. A.D.I.T., CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 62/KOL/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Jun 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 62/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Rpl Projects Limited Asstt. Director Of Income Tax, 24, Mangalam Building Vs Cpc, Bangalore 301, Hemant Basu Sarani Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aaecr3350D] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Bonnie Debbarma, Jcit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11/06/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -21, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 25/11/2021, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For Assessment Year 2018- 19. 2. When The Case Was Called For Hearing, None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. No Application For Adjournment Has Been Filed. Under These Circumstances, We Proceed To Adjudicate The Instant Appeal Ex- Parte Qua The Assessee, On The Basis Of Available Records & Hearing The Ld. D/R. 3. We Have Heard The Ld. D/R & Perused The Material Placed Before Us. The Sole Issue Involved In This Appeal Is Relating To The Disallowance Of Rs. 41,76,420/- Made By The Assessing Officer/Cpc

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Bonnie Debbarma, JCIT, Sr. D/R
Section 139(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Secondary School Education Society Hegdekatta, Sirsi vs. Income-Tax Officer (Exemptions) Ward-1, Mangalore

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

ITA 897/BANG/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jun 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavsecondary School Education The Income Tax Officer Society Hegdekatta (Exemption), Ward -1 1. Shri Gajanan Sec. School Albuquerque House Vs. Hegdekatta Sirsi Attavar Road, Attavar Sirsi 581403 Karnataka Mangalore 575001 Pan – Aanas3479D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Prabhath P. Bhat, Ca Revenue By: Ms. Neha Sahay, Jcti-Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.06.2024 O R D E R Per: Prakash Chand Yadav, J.M. The Present Appeal Of The Assessee Is Arising From Din & Order No. Itba/Apl/S250/2003-24/1063671684(1) Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Aurangabad (Cit(A)) Dated 30.03.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) In Respect Of Assessment Year (Ay) 2021-22. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, A Charitable Trust Registered With Income Tax Department Under Section 12Aa & Also Got 80G Of The Act. The Main Object Of The Assessee Is To Provide Education To Aspirants From Primary Level To Secondary Level. For The Impugned Year, Assessee Has Filed Its Return Of Income Electronically On 07.01.2022, Declaring Gross Total

For Appellant: Shri Prabhath P. Bhat, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCTI-DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250

DCIT, Circle, Patiala vs. M/S the British Co. Ed. School, Patiala

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 413/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Dharamvir, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 36Section 43B

M/S Empee Distilleries Ltd., Chennai vs. PCIT-1, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 716/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.716/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 V. M/S.Empee Distilleries Ltd., The Pcit, 72, Greams Road, Chennai. Thousand Lights, Chennai-600 006. [Pan: Aaace 1687 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By Shri M.Karunakaran, Adv. : ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By Shri V. Nandakumar, Cit : सुनवाईक"तारीख/Date Of Hearing 06.06.2024 : घोषणाक"तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 21.06.2024

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

Madhusudhan Pillai, Vikhroli vs. DCIT Circle-42(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 804/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

For Appellant: Ravindra PoojaryFor Respondent: H.M. Bhatt
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 6Section 90

Irla Co-Op Hsg Soceity Ltd, Mumbai vs. Ward 25(2)(5), Mumbai

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

ITA 4269/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Irla Co-Op Hsg Society Vs. Ito, Ward 25(2)(5) Limited, 191/A, Prime Maharashtra – 400054 Mall Irla, Vile Parle (West) Mumbai – 400056 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaai4878F Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Pramod Parida Respondent By : H.M. Bhatt Date Of Hearing 13.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 21.06.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 23.11.2018 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The Assessment Year 2016-17. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. Disallowance U/S 43B- 61,01,040/- I) The Id. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Statutory Liabilities Without Appreciating That The Same Had Been Paid Before The Due Date Of Filing Of Return U/S 139(1) & Further Erred In Holding That The Appellant, A Co-Op Housing Society (Chs), Is Doing Business Activity, Therefore, As Sec 438 Is Not Applicable On The Face It Being Eligible For The Benefit U/S 80P, The Disallowance Of Rs.61.01.040/- Is Uncalled For & The Same May Be Deleted Ii) Without Prejudice To Above, The Id Cit(A) Erred In Holding That The Concept Of Mutuality Does Not Apply To The Appellant Where There Is Close Nexus Of All Its Funds Flow Are Utilized Exclusively For The Benefit Of Its Members, Hence The Disallowance Made May Be Deleted As Consistency Needs To Be Respected. 2. Taxability U/S. 22 Or U/S. 56- Rental Or Hire Charges Rs.8,73,634/-

For Appellant: Pramod ParidaFor Respondent: H.M. Bhatt
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 22Section 24Section 43BSection 56Section 80P

Meghna Das, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-49(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 415/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: HeardITAT Delhi20 Jun 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year 2020-21

For Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr.DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 90

Doctor Punjabrao Deshmukh Krushi Vidyapeeth Karamchari Pat Sanstha Mryat, Akola vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Akola

ITA 331/NAG/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur19 Jun 2024AY 2018-2019

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

For Appellant: Shri K.P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 139(1)Section 234ASection 250Section 80ASection 80P

Muniyallappa Bharathi, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(3)(3), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees stands dismissed

ITA 841/BANG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jun 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Subramanya Bhat, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 25oSection 36(1)(va)Section 43

Sh. Onkar Syal, Bharatpur vs. ITO, Ward-2, Bharatpur

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are allowed for

ITA 347/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Anup Singh (Addl. CIT)
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

Sh. Onkar Syal, Bharatpur vs. ITO, Ward-2, Bharatpur

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are allowed for

ITA 346/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Anup Singh (Addl. CIT)
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

Valaram Suresh Kumar, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 729/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Shreehari Kutsa, Advocate
Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 250Section 69A

Sonal Sunil Thakrar, Mumbai vs. NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 744/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year :2012-13 Mrs. Sonal Sunil Thakkar, B-104, Mrud Kishore Bldg., Behind Gokul Shopping Center, Datta Pada Road, Borivali West, Mumbai – 400 092 Pan: Ahhpt-4628-D ---- Appellant Vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Ito 42(1)(5), Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra East, Mumbai – 400 051 --- Respondent Assessee By : Shri Tejas Shah Revenue By : Shri Surendra Meena Date Of Hearing : 13/06/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 18/06/2024

For Appellant: Shri Tejas ShahFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Meena
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 271F

Usha Subhash Diwan, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Office 25(1)(5), Mumbai

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

ITA 3630/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year :2011-12 Usha Subhash Diwan, D-303, Nirman Park, Pump House, R.J.Road, Mumbai – 400 093 Pan: Afupd-8410-N ---- Appellant Vs. I.T.O -25(1)(5),Mumbai C-10/406, G Block, Bkc, Bandra(E) Mumbai – 400 051 --- Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sanjay Parikh Revenue By : Shri Surendra Meena Date Of Hearing : 12/06/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 18/06/2024

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay ParikhFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Meena
Section 139(1)Section 144Section 148

Shiksha Foundation, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-2 (Exemp), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 441/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Divyang Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Santosh Kumar, Sr. D.R
Section 11Section 119Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250

Suneel Kumar Agrawal, Lakhimpur Kheri vs. Income Tax Officer 3(5), Lakhimpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 112/LKW/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow13 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaa.Ys. 2017-18 Suneel Kumar Agarwal, Vs. Income Tax Officer-3(5), Old Galla Mandi, Lakhimpur - Kheri Lakhimpur Kheri-262701 Pan Agfpa 3061J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri P.K. Kapoor, Ca Respondent By Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit( Dr) Date Of Hearing 20/03/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 13/06/2024 O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against Order Dated 10.02.2023 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of The Income Tax (Appeal) [Hereinafter Called The ‘Cit(A)’], Lucknow-3 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case, As Appearing From The Assessment Order, Are That The Assessee Is Engaged In Trading Of Edible Oil, Food Grains, Khandsari, Sugar, Atta, Maida & Suji Etc. A Warrant U/S. 132A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called The ‘Act’) Was Served On The Assessee On 02.02.2017 & A Sum Of Rs.14,64,000/- Was Seized From The Possession Of The Assessee.

Section 132ASection 139(1)Section 153ASection 69A

Moonak Welfare Society, Sangrur vs. ITO, Ward, Sunam

In the result, we direct the AO to allow the exemption u/s 11 to the assessee society

ITA 465/CHANDI/2023[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Jun 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A). 3.1 It Was Submitted During The Appellate Proceedings That The Cpc, Bangalore While Processing The Return Of Income Has Disallowed The Exemption On The Ground That Tax Audit Report In Form 10B Should Have Been Filed One Month Prior To The Filing

For Appellant: Shri Jaspal Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ved Parkash Kalia, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)(b)Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)