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)

Transsys Solutions Private Limited, Chennai vs. The Income Tax Officer, Corporate Ward - 6(1), Chennai

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

ITA 1393/CHNY/2026[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jul 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.1393/Chny/2026 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2020-21) Transsys Solutions Pvt. Ltd. The Income Tax Officer F-A, I Floor, Ragavendra Flats Vs. Corporate Ward 6(1) 133, Pushpammal Street Chennai. Krishnapuram, Ambattur Chennai – 600 053. [Pan:Aadct4603N] (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. M.Lavanya, Ca Department By : Shri. E.Elango, Jcit सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing : 10.06.2026 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08.07.2026 आदेश / O R D E R Per S.R.Raghunatha, Am: This Appeal Of The Assessee Is Filed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), Nfac, Delhi (In Short ‘Ld.Cit(A)’) For The Assessment Year 2020-21, Vide The Order Dated 28.10.2022 Against The Intimation Issued By The Central Processing Centre, Bengaluru, (In Shot “Ao”) U/S.143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) Dated 18.12.2021. :-2-: 2. At The Outset, It Is Observed That The Present Appeal Has Been Filed With A Delay Of 1165 Days. The Assessee Has Moved A Petition Seeking Condonation Of The Delay, Duly Supported By An Affidavit Explaining The Reasons For The Belated Filing Of The Appeal As Detailed Below:

For Appellant: Ms. M.Lavanya, CAFor Respondent: Shri. E.Elango, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

Arihant Roller Flour Mills, Jind, Haryana vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1 Jind, Haryana

The appeal of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 942/CHANDI/2026[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 Jul 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.942/Chandi/2026 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) M/S Arihant Roller Flour Mills Ito Ward – 1 बनाम/ Vs. Uchana S.O, Baroda, Jind Kothi No. 1234, Urban Estate Haryana – 126115 Jind, Haryana – 127306 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aamfa-5652-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Nikhil Goyal & Sh. Ashok Goyal (Advocates) – Ld. Ars ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Jaishree Sharma (Cit) - Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04-06-2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 07-07-2026 : आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. By Way Of This Appeal, The Assessee Assails Invocation Of Revisionary Jurisdiction U/S 263 By Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Rohtak (Pr. Cit) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19 Vide Impugned Order Dated 28-03-2026 Proposing Revision Of An Assessment As Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S.144 R.W.S. 260 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act On 16-02-2024 After Making Quantum Addition Of Rs.10.06 Lacs.

For Appellant: Sh. Nikhil Goyal and Sh. Ashok GoyalFor Respondent: Smt. Jaishree Sharma (CIT) - Ld. DR
Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 263Section 270A