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)

Shalini Bhupal, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 271/HYD/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Aug 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 Smt.Shalini Bhupal Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Hyerabad Circle 2(1) Pan:Acepb2655G Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Kumar Pal, Ca Revenue By: Smt. K. Haritha, Dr Date Of Hearing: 02/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 30/08/2023 Order Per R.K. Panda, Vice-This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 16.03.2022 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, Relating To A.Y.2019-20. 2. There Is A Delay Of 2Days In Filing Of This Appeal By The Assessee For Which The Assessee Has Filed A Condonation Petition Along With An Affidavit Explaining The Reasons For Such Delay. After Considering The Contents Of The Condonation Petition Filed Along With The Affidavit, The Delay In Filing Of This Appeal By 2 Days Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri Kumar Pal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. K. Haritha, DR

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 39Section 90

The Nedunchalai Nagar Co-Operative House Building Society Limited, Salem vs. ADIT-CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 608/CHNY/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Aug 2023AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.608/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Nedunchalai Nagar Co-Operative Vs. The Income Tax Officer, House Building Society Limited, Ward 1(1), 177/9, Bangalow Street, Mustaj Salem. Towers, Suramangalam Main Road, Thiruvagoundanur, Salem 636 005. [Pan:Aactt0358G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 18.07.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.08.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi Dated 15.03.2023 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2021-22. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Has Filed The Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2021-22 On 16.03.2022 Admitting Nil

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT

Section 119(2)Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 80P

Balakrishnan Jagadeesan, Chennai vs. ITO, Che-C-(65)(1), Chennai

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

ITA 491/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.491/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Balakrishnan Jagadeesan, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 30, East Park Road, Income Tax, Shenoy Nagar, Chennai 600 030. Non Corporate Ward 10(1), Chennai. [Pan:Abppn6488B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Girish Kumar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 28.08.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.08.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao:

For Appellant: Shri S. Girish Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Section 13Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271BSection 37(1)Section 44A

The Tamilnadu Secretariat Staff Cooperative Society Limited, Chennai vs. ITO, Non Corporate Ward-12(1), Chennai

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

ITA 473/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Shri Manomohan Dasआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.473/Chny/2023 िनधा'रण वष' /Assessment Year: 2018-19 The Tamilnadu Secretariat Staff The Income Tax Officer, Co-Operative Society Ltd., Vs. Non Corporate Ward-12(1), Secretariate Society, Chennai. Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009. [Pan: Aaeat-7101-N] (अपीलाथ*/Appellant) (+,थ*/Respondent) अपीलाथ* की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Reddy Prakash, Ca – Ld. Ar +,थ* की ओर से /Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 22.08.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.08.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manomohan Das, J.M: Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2018- 19 Arises Out Of The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 14-11-2022 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 12-04-2021. The Subject Matter Of The Appeal Is The Denial Of Deduction U/S 80P Of The :- 2 -: Act For Late Filing Of Return Of Income Beyond Due Date U/S 139(1)

For Appellant: Shri Reddy Prakash, CA – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT – Ld. Sr

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 80ASection 80P

Blueprint Infrahomes LLP, Jaipur vs. ADIT CPC Bengaluru Or ITO Ward 6(1) Jaipur, Jaipur

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

ITA 68/JPR/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Aug 2023AY 2021-22

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

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT)

Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 801BSection 80I

Deloitte India Advisory Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi/CIT(A), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1202/MUM/2023[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2023AY 2020-2021

Bench: The Revised Return, Therefore The Appellant Ought To Have Been Allowed Entire Foreign Tax Relief Of Rs. 2,82,44,841. 1.3 The Learned Nfac Ought To Have Appreciated That Rule 128 Of The Income Tax Rules, 1962 Does Not Provide For Disallowance Of Foreign Tax Relief In Case Of Filing Of Revised Form 67 Along With The Revised Return. 1.4 The Learned Nfac Ought To Have Granted The Balance Foreign Tax Relief Amounting To Rs. 1,34,86,569 Since The Appellant Has Filed The Revised Form 67 Before The Due Date Of Filing Of Revised Return Of Income.

Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 90Section 90(2)

Dipen Kumarpal Parekh, Mumbai vs. Assessing Officer, NFAC, New Delhi

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

ITA 1702/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledipen Kumarpal Parekh Vs. Assessing Officer, 603, Patel Niwas, Sainath Nfac, New Delhi Road, Malad (W) Mumbai – 4000064. Pan/Gir No. : Aadpp6112D Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Ashwin Kashinath.Ar Respondent By : Shri R.P. Veena.Dr Date Of Hearing 23.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 24.08.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Passed U/S 154 & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Ashwin Kashinath.ARFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Veena.DR

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Aa282 Kolappalur Primary Agricultural Coop Credit Society Limited, Erode vs. ITO Ward 2(1), Erode

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 815/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.815/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Aa282 Kolappalur Primary Agricultural Ito, बनाम Co-Operative Credit Society Limited, Ward-2(1), 328, G.D. Road, Kollapalur Erode. / Vs. Gobichettipalayam, Erode-638 456. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacaa-1567-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri E. Sam Victor(Advocate)-Ld.Ar !"थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri P.Sajit Kumar (Jcit)-Ld.Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28-08-2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28-08-2023 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19 Arises Out Of The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 21-03-2022 In The Matter Of An Intimation Issued By Cpc U/S 143(1) 31-05-2019. The Cpc Has Denied Deduction As Claimed By The Assessee U/S 80P(2)(A)(I) Due To The Fact That Return Of Income Was Not Filed Within Due Date U/S 139(1). The Appeal Has Been Dismissed Since The Assessee Failed To Appear During Appellate Proceedings.

For Appellant: Shri E. Sam Victor(Advocate)-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri P.Sajit Kumar (JCIT)-Ld.DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 80P(2)(a)

Ojin Bakers & Restaurant, Kozhikode vs. The ITO Ward 1(1), Kozhikode

In the result, ITA No. 181/Coch/2023 is allowed for statistical purposes, and ITA Nos

ITA 183/COCH/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Shri Manomohan Dasojin Bakes The Income Tax Officer 1/4780, A.B.C.D.E.G. Ward – 1(1), Kozhikode Dhana Plaza, West Nadakkavu Vs. Kozhikode 673011 [Pan:Abjfs8500K] (Appellant) (Respondent) Ojin Bakers, Medical College The Income Tax Officer 30/72/F, Kozhikode Medical Ward – 1(1), Kozhikode Vs. College, Kozhikode 673008 [Pan:Aacfo6978M] (Appellant) (Respondent) Ojin Bakes & Restaurant The Income Tax Officer 213761/F-5,G36, Happy Tower Ward – 1(1), Kozhikode Vattakkinar, Post Arts College Vs. Meenchanda, Kozhikode 673011 [Pan: Aabfo8886D] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri R. Krishnan, Ca Respondent By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 12.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.08.2023

For Appellant: Shri R. Krishnan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 271BSection 273BSection 44A

Ojin Bakers, Medical College, Kozhikode vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Kozhikode

In the result, ITA No. 181/Coch/2023 is allowed for statistical purposes, and ITA Nos

ITA 182/COCH/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri R. Krishnan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 271BSection 273BSection 44A

Ojin Bakers, Kozhikode vs. The ITO Ward 1(1), Kozhikode

In the result, ITA No. 181/Coch/2023 is allowed for statistical purposes, and ITA Nos

ITA 181/COCH/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri R. Krishnan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 271BSection 273BSection 44A

Sadanand Champakrao Manekar, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CPC, Begaluru

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

ITA 1516/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalesadanand Champak Rao Vs. Dcit, Cpc Manekar Bangalore.-560500 C/O Sanjay Vhanbatte & Compnay, Cts No. 245, C/1, First Floor, Mahalaxmi Bank Bldg, Near Kelavkar Hospital Tarabai Park, Mumbai – 416003. Pan/Gir No. : Acepm7834N Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Bhavesh Jain.Ar Respondent By : Shri Rp Veena.Dr Date Of Hearing 24.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 25.08.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Passed U/S 143(1) & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal. Sadanand Champakrao Manekar, Mumbai. 1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi Erred In Confirming The Addition Made By The Dcit, Cpc, Bengaluru By Way Of Adjustment U/S 143(1)(A) In Respect Of Employees' Contribution To Provident Fund & Esic Payment Of Rs. 14,21,489/- As Not Being Allowable As Deduction Under Section 36(1)(Va) As The Contribution Has Been Deposited With The Respective Authority After The Due Date As Provided Under The Respective Law. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Cit(A), Erred In Not Accepting The Contention Of The Appellant That Such Action Of The Dcit Does Not Fall Within The Ambit Of The Adjustments Prescribed Under Section 143(1)(A). The Appellant Craves Leave To Add To, Amend, Alter, Modify, Delete Or Add A New Ground Of Appeal Before Or At The Time Of Hearing.

For Appellant: Shri Bhavesh Jain.ARFor Respondent: Shri RP Veena.DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)

Sanjay Kumar, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward 4(1), Gurugram

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

ITA 2471/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Delhi24 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Dey & Sh. Pradip Kumar Kediasanjay Kumar Ca Mr Vs. Ito Sahu M. Sahu & Ward- 4 (1) Associates Chartered Gurugram Accountant House No.651, 1St Floor, Sector- 10A, Nr. Union Bank Of India, Gurgaon Haryana 122001 Pan No.Cmipk8618J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36

M/S Aadhi Enterprises Private Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3(1), Chennai

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

ITA 308/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 308/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Aadhi Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., The Acit, No.1-130, Perambur Barracks V. Central Circle-3(1), Road, Pattalam, Chennai. Chennai – 600 112. Pan: Aanca 0382P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, Fca Shri S. Neelakantan, Fca Shri Shrenik Chordia, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.07.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.08.2023

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 68

Veeramani Muthukumarasamy, Kadaladi vs. ITO, CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 1110/CHNY/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Aug 2023AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1110/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 Veeramani Muthukumarasamy, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 2-1, Pullanthai, S. Keeranthai, Ward 1, Ramnad. Kadaladi 623 120, Tamil Nadu. [Pan:Ardpm4941N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. Viswanathan, Fca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 23.08.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.08.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 27.10.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Delayed By One Day In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal, For Which, The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of The Delay In The Form Of An Affidavit, To Which; The Ld. Dr

For Appellant: Shri R. Viswanathan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT

Section 10Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80DSection 89(1)

Ess Ess Kay Engineering Company Private Limited, Jalandhar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4, Jalandhar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 172/ASR/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar23 Aug 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Digvijai Kumar Chaudhary, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 43B

Jaimal Singh and Sons, Pipariya vs. The ACIT Cp Bangalore, Bengalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assesse is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 36/IND/2023[2020-21]Status: HeardITAT Indore23 Aug 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanijaimal Singh & Sons Acit, Cpc, 159 Nehru Ward, Pipariya Bangalore Vs. Mp (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaafj 8045J Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 23.08.2023

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 438Section 43B