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)

Solapur Dist M S K Samiti H Master T and N T Path Mydt Pandharpur, Pandharpur vs. ITO, Ward 2, Pandharpur

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 804/PUN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.804/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Solapur Dist M S K Samiti H The Income Tax Officer, Master T & N T Path V Ward-2, Pandharapur. Mydtpandharpur, S 3980, Station Road, Pandharpur. Maharashtra – 413304. Pan: Aanas9890E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 15/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 08/03/2024 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(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 11.05.2023 Emanating From Assessment Order Dated 30.07.2019Passed Under Section 144 R.W.S 144A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Assessee Was In Presumption That Co Operative Societies Income Is Exempt Under 80P Generally Maximum Co Solapur Dist M S K Samiti H Master T & N T Path Mydt Pandharpur [A]

Section 139(1)Section 144Section 250Section 80Section 80ASection 80PSection 8OSection 8Q

Fastner Commodeal Private Limited, Siliguri vs. ADIT (CPC), Bengaluru

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1010/KOL/2023[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Mar 2024AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawal]

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

Uma Maheshwar Rao Vendavelli, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5 (3)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 34/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore07 Mar 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Sri.Monish Sawkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Subramanian.S, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 90

The Mangalorean Garden Homes Co-Operative Housing Society Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 23 (3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3852/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singh, The Mangalorean Garden Vs. Ito Ward 23(3) Homes Co-Operative Piramal Chamber Housing Society Limited, Mumbai - 110001 Rebello House, 132, Hill Road, Bandra (West), Mumbai – 400050 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaaat3420G Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Subhash S. Shetty Respondent By : Manish Ajudiya Date Of Hearing 04.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 07.03.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) Nfac, Dated 04.09.2023 For A.Y. 2018-19. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Dismissing The Appeal Of The Appellant & Confirming The Order Of The Assessing Officer Is Illegal, Bad In Law, Contrary To The Express Provisions Of The Act & Therefore Unsustainable In Law & Facts. 2. The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Committed A Gross Error Of Law & Fact In Confirming The Order Of The Assessing Officer Disallowing The Claim Of Deduction Of Rs.46,67,607/- Under Section 80P(2)(D) On The Ground That Appellant Has Failed To Submit Its Return Of Income Within The Stipulated Time Allowed Under Section 139(1) Of The Act. 3. The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Committed A Gross Error Of Law & Fact In Not Appreciating The Fact That The Return Of Income

For Appellant: Subhash S. ShettyFor Respondent: Manish Ajudiya
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 80P(2)(d)

Sanjeev Kumar Goel, Hapur vs. ITO Ward-3(5), Hapur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3187/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2013-14 Sanjeev Kumar Goyal, Vs. Ito, 607, Railway Road, Ward-3(5), Patel Nagar, Hapur, Hapur. Uttar Pradesh 245 101 Pan Aatpg1790N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr.DR
Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 271BSection 44A

Ushaben Maganbhai Patel, Vadodara vs. The ITO, Ward-1(2)(5) Now Ward-1(2)(1), Vadodara

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

ITA 210/AHD/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 50Section 54BSection 54FSection 69A

Sri Praja Co-Operative Credit Society Limited, Bangalore vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 28/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Mar 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2020-21 M/S. Sri Praja Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd., Vs. Ito, No.1, 3Rd Main Road, Nagappa Block, Ward – 2(2)(1), Sriramapura, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 021. Pan : Aaajs 1557 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Srinivas Bharath, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Subramanian S, Addl. Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 06.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.03.2024

For Appellant: Shri. Srinivas Bharath, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

DCIT, CC-3(3), Kolkata vs. Seven Star Steels Ltd., Kolkata

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross objection of the assessee is allowed

ITSSA 118/KOL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma] I.T.(Ss)A. No. 118/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dcit, Cc-3(3), Kolkata

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 154Section 245D(4)

DCIT, Central Circle 30, New Delhi vs. Prakash Industries Ltd, Hissar

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1929/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. C.N. Prasadassessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit Vs. Prakash Industries Ltd. Central Circle 30 15 Km Stone Delhi Road, New Delhi Hisar, Haryana – 125044 Pan No.Aabcp6765H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. P N Barnwal, Cit Dr Respondent By Sh. Ajay Wadhwa, Advocate Ms. Ayushi Gupta, Advocate Date Of Hearing: 29/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 05/03/2024 Order Per N. K. Billaiya, Am: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Preferred Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-30, New Delhi Dated 21.04.2023 Pertaining To A.Y.2011-12. 2. The Grievance Of The Revenue Read As Under :-

Section 115JSection 132Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 153Section 153ASection 154Section 234Section 234B

Joseph Madathiparambil Michael vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

In the result, the issue referred to us is answered in favour of the

WP(C)/10436/2023HC Kerala04 Mar 2024

Bench: Us By The Order Of The Chief Justice, Pursuant To A Reference Order Dated 03.11.2023 Of A Learned Single Judge In The Writ Petition. 2. The Brief Facts Necessary For The Disposal Of The Writ Petition Are As Follows: The Petitioner, An Assessee Under The Provisions Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The 'It Act') Approached This Court Impugning Ext.P8 Order Dated 17.02.2023 Passed By The Assessing Authority Purportedly Giving Effect To An Order Dated 24.05.2016 Of The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, Under Section 254 Of The It Act, 1961. The Limited Ground On Which The Writ Petition Was Filed Was That The Consequential Order (Ext.P8) Passed By The Assessing Authority Was Beyond The Time Limit Specified Under Section 153(2A) Of The It Act As It Stood Prior To The Amendments With Effect From 01.06.2016. The Learned Single Judge Was Referred To A Judgment Of Another Single Judge Of This Court In Patel R.P. (Dr.) V.

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153Section 254Section 54F

Trimbak Konher Patil, Hubblli vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Hubli

ITA 6/BANG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Mar 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Rajendra Aggarwal, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 107/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri M. Balaganesh[Assessment Year: 2017-18]

Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54(2)Section 54F

Mann Engineering Company, Nagpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 268/NAG/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur29 Feb 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Hirani, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)

Shri Premroop V. Sahu, Nagpur vs. A.C.I.T. Circle 1(2), Nagpur

ITA 7/NAG/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur29 Feb 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri Maurya Pratap, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153A

Shri Premroop V. Sahu, Nagpur vs. A.C.I.T. Central Cir., - 1(2), Nagpur

ITA 130/NAG/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur29 Feb 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri Maurya Pratap, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153A

Shri Premroop V. Sahu, Nagpur vs. A.C.I.T. Central Cir., - 1(2), Nagpur

ITA 129/NAG/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur29 Feb 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri Maurya Pratap, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153A

Shreya Cancer Foundation, Visakhapatnam vs. The ITO, Ward-1(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 281/VIZ/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam29 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.281/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19) Shreya Cancer Foundation Vs. Income Tax Officer 1-70-6, Mig-109, Mvp Colony Ward-1(1) Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aaots9921J] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri C.Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Aparna Villuri, DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250

Aditya Birla Private Equity Trust, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi (Income Tax Officer 20(1)(1), Mumbai)

Accordingly, the ground raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 91/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Choudhry, Hon'Bleand

Section 1Section 10Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Vibha Subhash Singh, Kharghar vs. ITO Ward-2(2), Kalyan

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

ITA 3740/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singhvibha Subhash Singh Vs. Income Tax Officer- 1601 Viswahans, Sector Nfac, Ward 2(2) 35D, Near Bank Of India, Mohan Plaza, 2Nd Floor, Kharghar – 410210 Wayale Nagar, Khadakpada, Kalyan (W), Kalyan - 421301 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Apsps5258R Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Rajeev Waglay Respondent By : S. Arunkumar Date Of Hearing 28.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 29.02.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) Nfac, Dated 07.08.2023 For A.Y. 2013-14. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “I. Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 24,97,500 U/S. 69 Of Income Tax Act, 1961 On The Ground That The Appellant Had Neither Tendered The Income Tax Return Nor The Details Of Investment As Stated By The Assessing Officer Without Appreciating The Fact That The Appellant Had Filed The Return Of Income In Response To Notice U/S. 148 On 21.9.2021 Under Acknowledgment No. 550248700210921 & That This Return Was Very Much Available On Income Tax Portal. Ii. Confirming The Above Addition Without Appreciating The Fact That When The Appellant Had Invested Of Rs. 14,00,000 Only In The Property, Higher Value Could Not Have Been Attributed To The Appellant Without Any Basis.

For Appellant: Rajeev WaglayFor Respondent: S. Arunkumar
Section 139(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69

Sarika Sachdeva, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-01, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 68/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: or during the course of hearing of the appeal.

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69A