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)

ACIT, Circle-26(1), New Delhi vs. Value First Digital Media Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, ITA No. 3143/Del/2019 [A

ITA 3143/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

Section 250Section 40Section 72ASection 9(1)(vi)

Bptp Parklands Pride Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, Range- 5, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2949/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Bhagwani, CAFor Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR
Section 139(1)Section 143BSection 194CSection 43B

M/S. Tenova India Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, CC-3(1), Chennai

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

ITTPA 78/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Feb 2023AY 2015-16
For Appellant: ShriN. Ashik Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, JCIT
Section 143(3)

A.R. Overseas Tradecom (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle-7(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 651/KOL/2022[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Feb 2023AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Manish Boradi.T.A. No.651/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2020-21 A R Overseas Tradecom (P) Ltd.....…..…………....................……….……Appellant 86A, Topsia Road (South), Haute Street, Room No.207, Kolkata-700006. [Pan: Aaica5645C] Vs. Dcit, Circle-7(1), Kolkata.. ……......…............…….......................…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Swati Baid, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 31, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 06, 2023 Order Per Manish Borad: This Appeal Is At The Instance Of The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Year (In Short “Ay”) 2020-21 Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] Dated 11.09.2022 Which Is Arising Out Of The Order U/S 154 Of The Assessing Officer Dated 06.01.2022. 2. The Registry Has Informed That The Present Appeal Is Delay By 7 Days. Application For Condonation Of Delay Has Been Filed. We Have Perused The Same & Observed That There Was Sufficient Cause Which Prevented The Assessee To File The Appeal In Time. We, Therefore, Condone The Delay & Admit The Appeal For Adjudication.

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 154

B4S Solution P.Ltd, Ghaziabad vs. ACIT, Circle-4(2), New Delhi

In the result, Appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2187/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali
Section 10(34)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 2(24)Section 3Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

M/S. Govardhan Overseas Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. PCIT-2, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 215/KOL/2022[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata03 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

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

Green Agro Pack Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The ADIT, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1181/BANG/2022[2019-2020]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore02 Feb 2023AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Balaram R. Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gudimella VP Pavan Kumar, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 34(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Vitthal Srinivasan, Bengaluru vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1087/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Feb 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2019-20 M/S. Vitthal Srinivasan, Vs. Adit, No.A-1102 Mantri Espana, Central Processing Centre, 67, Kariyammana Agrahar Bellandur, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 103. Pan : Btpps 5944 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. G. Siddesh, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel Date Of Hearing : 31.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.02.2023 O R D E R This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 17.11.2022 Of Nfac, Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. The Assessee Is An Individual. The Assessee Filed Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2019-20 On 29.08.2019. In The Return, The Assessee Claimed Foreign Tax Credit In Respect Of A Sum Of Rs.3,30,000/-. During The Previous Year, The Assessee Earned Income In Usa & Had Paid Taxes In Usa In Respect Of Income So Earned. It Is Not In Dispute That In Terms Of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (Dtaa) Between India & Usa R.W.S. 90 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’), The Assessee Is Entitled To Claim Credit For Taxes Paid In Usa On The Income Earned In Usa, Which Is Again Taxed In India. The Claim Was Rejected By The Ao In Intimation Passed Under Section 143(1) Of The Act Dated Page 2 Of 4

For Appellant: Shri. G. Siddesh, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 90

Mahagun India Pvt. Ltd, Delhi vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 13

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

ITA 263/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Feb 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Due Date Of Filing Of Itr U/S 139(1) & The Amendment As Made In The Section By Finance Bill 2020 Is Effective From A.Y 2020-21 .

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Chand, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 34(1)(iv)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 37(1)

Nexgen Infracon Private Limited, Delhi vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi

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

ITA 261/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Feb 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Due Date Of Filing Of Itr U/S 139(1) & The Amendment As Made In The Section By Finance Bill 2020 Is Effective From A.Y 2020-21 .

For Appellant: Shri Ruchesh Sinha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Chand, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 34(1)(iv)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 37(1)Section 43B

Dawat E Islami Hind, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemption), Mumbai

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

ITA 1037/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ankit ChokshiFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Raj
Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 12Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 263

ACIT -CC- 4(2), Mumbai vs. Gigaplex Estate Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2506/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2023AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal & MananFor Respondent: Shri Kishore Dhule (DR)
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 37(1)

Suraj Bhan, Rohtak vs. ITO Ward - 4, Rohtak

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

ITA 1637/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri N.K. Choudhryassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. U.S. Aggarwal, Ld. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. B.M. Singh, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250(6)Section 271F

Lata Keshao Thaokar, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 28(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2256/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blelata Keshao Thaokar V. Ito– Ward – 28(2)(1) B-103, Balaji Complex, Sector-46A Vashi Railway Station Commercial Complex Mumbai - 400703 Plot 3C, Nerul (West) Navi Mumbai Pan: Afbpt2685Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Rajesh Shah Department Represented By : Shri Manoj Kumar

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271BSection 44A

Shri Akhilesh Rathi, Indore vs. The Pr CIT -1, Indore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 114/IND/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyaniassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kamal Garg, C.A For Revenue : Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 26A

The Metropolitan Co-Operative Housing Society Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 1044/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jan 2023AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri. Sandeep, CAFor Respondent: Shri.Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 63Section 80PSection 80P(2)

Sushee Tts Jv, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-6(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 714/HYD/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Jan 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 M/S. Sushee Tts Jv Vs. Dy. C.I.T Hyderabad Circle 6(1) Pan:Absfs5848K Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas, Ca Revenue By: Shri Kumar Aditya, Dr Date Of Hearing: 24/01/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 25/01/2023 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20/10/2022 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac, Delhi Relating To A.Y.2019-20. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Firm Carrying On The Business Of Work Contracts. It Filed Its Return Of Income U/S 139(1) Of The I.T Act On 31.10.2019 For The A.Y 2019-20, Declaring Total Loss Of Rs.29,618/- & Claimed Refund Of Rs. 5,16,127/-. The Cpc Bengaluru In The Intimation U/S 143(1) Of The Act Dated 15.6.2020 Computed The Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs.68,82,806/- Wherein An Amount Of Rs.69,12,416/- Was Added U/S 40(A)(Ia) Of The Act Being 30% Of The Sub-Contract Expenditure Of Rs.2,30,41,386/- On The Ground That As Per The Page 1 Of 5

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Aditya, DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 30Section 40

Pumpkin Pictures Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2093/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jan 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Bhosle, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ujjwal Chavhan, Sr. AR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271BSection 274Section 44A

Inspop.Com Limited, Gurugram vs. DCIT, Int. Tax, Gurgaon

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 350/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Manoj Kumar, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Gangadhar Panda, CIT DR
Section 10ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144C

Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(3)(7), Surat vs. Shri Anil Pukhraj Jain, Surat

In the result the ground No

ITA 89/SRT/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 Jan 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.89/Srt/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2008-09) (Physical Court Hearing) Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(7), Anil Pukhraj Jain, Room No.414, 4Th Floor, Aayakar Prop. Of Aakruti Stone, 206-2Nd Floor, Tulsi Building, Bhavan, Adajan, Surat-395009 Vs. Somnath Mahadev Ni Sheri, Mahidharpura, Surat – 395009. (Appellant) (Respondent)/ "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ahapj8569Q ""या"ेप सं Cross Objection No.10/Srt/2021 (A/O Ita No.89/Srt/2017) िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2008-09) Anil Pukhraj Jain, Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(7), Room No.414, 4Th Floor, Aayakar Prop. Of Aakruti Stone, 206- 2Nd Floor, Tulsi Building, Vs. Bhavan, Adajan, Surat-395009 Somnath Mahadev Ni Sheri, Mahidharpura, Surat – 395009. Appellant/Co-Objector (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ahapj8569Q िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri Sapnesh R. Sheth, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing 23/12/2022 उ"ोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 23/ 01/2023

Section 143(3)