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)

M/S. IV Sanctum, Bengaluru vs. Additional Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 986/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Nov 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2019-20 M/S. Iv Sanctum, Vs. The Assistant Director Of Income Tax, #18/19, 4Th Cross, 5Th Main, Cpc, Gandhinagar, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 009. Pan : Aawfm 3697 H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel Date Of Hearing : 23.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.11.2022 O R D E R This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Nfac, Delhi, Dated 29.09.2022, Relating To Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. The Only Issue That Arises For Consideration In This Appeal Is As To Whether The Revenue Authorities Were Justified In Making A Disallowance On Delayed Payment Of Employee’S Contribution To Esi & Pf Of Rs.4,94,192/- Made By The Assessee Beyond The Due Date By Invoking The Provisions Of Section 36(1)(Va) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). 3. On The Above Issue, It Is Not Disputed That As Per The Decision Of The Hon’Ble Supreme Court Rendered In The Case Of Checkmate Services Pvt Ltd Vs Cit-1 In Civil Appeal 2833/2016 Vide Its Judgment Dated 12 October 2022 Decided The Issue On Allowability/Treatment Of ‘Delayed’ Employee Pf Contribution Payment In Hands Of Assessee Under Provisions Page 2 Of 4

For Appellant: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Pengg Usha Martin Wires Private Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 8(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 366/KOL/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Nov 2022AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Shri Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 366/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Pengg Usha Martin Wires Private Deputy Commissioner Of Income Limited Tax, Circle-8(2), Kolkata Vs 2A, Victoria Plaza Shakespeare Sarani Theatre Road Kolkata - 700071 [Pan : Aadcp9007G] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Soumyadip Roy Choudhury, A/R Revenue By : Shri Partha Pratim Barman, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13/10/2022 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22/11/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 13/06/2022, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act’), For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1.That On The Facts Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A)Nfac) Has Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Passing An Order U/S 250 By Dismissing Appeal Against Disallowance Of Sum Of Inr 10,63,921/- Being Contribution Of Employees' Share Towards Esi, Pf, Superannuation Fund Or Any Other Fund Set Up For The Welfare Of The Employee U/S 36(1)(Va) Read With Sec. 2(24)(X) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 & Has Not Relied On The Decision Of Hon'Ble Itat In Their Own Case For The Ay 2018-19 Where It Was Held That The Amendment Brought In Finance Act 2021 In Relation To Section 36(1)(Va) & Section 43B Of The Act Is Prospective In Nature & Would Apply From Ay 2021-22 Onwards.

For Appellant: Shri Soumyadip Roy Choudhury, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Partha Pratim Barman, Addl. CIT
Section 139(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Sucram Pharmaceuticals Private Limited, Chennai vs. ITO Corporate Ward 6(4), Chennai

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

ITA 987/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.987/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Sucram Pharmaceuticals Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Private Limited, Corporate Ward 6(4), H37J, Manthoppu Colony, 8Th Avenue, Chennai. Ashok Nagar, Chennai 600 083. [Pan:Aakcs2196J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Sheila Parthasarathy, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 31.10.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04.11.2022 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) 15, Chennai Dated 30.01.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Facts Are, In Brief, That The Assessee Is In The Business Of Manufacturing Of Medicines & Drugs & Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2012-13 On 30.03.2013 Admitting Nil Income. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny By Cass & After Following Due

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sheila Parthasarathy, Addl. CIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 80I