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)

Hiren Hardasbhai Karamta, Vadodara vs. ITO, Ward 4, Veraval

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

ITA 763/RJT/2026[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Sept 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 763/Rjt/2026 [ "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 ] Hiren Hardasbhai Karamta, Ito, Ward 4, Veraval C-276, Mathura Nagri, Sun Pharma Vs. Income Tax Office, Road, Opp. Panghat Complex, Yogeshwar Bhavan, Vadodara, Gujarat -390001 Veraval, Gujarat -362265 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Auipk4596K (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Om Kanabar. Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Shishir Kumar, Ld. Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 29/07/2026 : 30/09/2026 Date Of Pronouncement :: Order :: Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2019-20, Is Directed Against The Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 30.12.2025 By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi/Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [In Short ‘Ld.Cit(A)’] Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (In Short ‘Ao’) U/S 147 Read With Section 144B Of The Act Dated 27.12.2024. 2. When The Matter Was Called For Hearing, The Learned Counsel For The Assessee At The Outset Submitted That Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Belatedly By 75 Days. The Assessee Has Moved A Petition For Condonation Of Delay, Requesting The Bench To Condone The Delay, In Filing Appeal. The Learned Counsel Hiren Hardasbhai Karamta

For Appellant: Shri Om Kanabar. Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Shishir Kumar, Ld. SR DR
Section 139(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 80G

Rushikant Jaywantrao Shinde, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 20(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, as indicated above

ITA 2019/MUM/2026[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R. Singh & AkshayFor Respondent: Assessee by
Section 139(1)Section 142Section 144Section 148Section 192

Harpreet Singh, Ferozepur City vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-3(1), Ferozepur

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes and the stay application is dismissed

ITA 814/ASR/2026[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Sept 2026AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Ble

Section 139(1)Section 69A

Fayaz Ahmad Rather, Ganderbal vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Srinagar

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 654/ASR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Sept 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Ble

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144

Baljit Singh, Punjab vs. ITO, Ward 1(1). Btd, Punjab

In the result, appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 358/ASR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Sept 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Ble

Section 139(1)Section 144Section 147Section 69A

Baljit Singh, Punjab vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Btd, Punjab

In the result, appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 357/ASR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Sept 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Ble

Section 139(1)Section 144Section 147Section 69A

Baljit Singh, Punjab vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Btd, Punjab

In the result, appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 356/ASR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Sept 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Ble

Section 139(1)Section 144Section 147Section 69A

Baljit Singh, Punjab vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Btd, Punjab

In the result, appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 355/ASR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Sept 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Ble

Section 139(1)Section 144Section 147Section 69A

Mukesh Kumar Agarwal, Sikkim, Gangtok vs. I.T.O., Ward - 3(1), Gangtok

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

ITA 2630/KOL/2026[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Sept 2026AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

Section 10Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250

Monarch Co-Op Credit Society Limited, Andheri vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 41(4)(2), Mumbai, Bandra

In the result, the ground of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5594/MUM/2026[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Jagadish(Physicalhearing) Monarch Co-Op Credit Society Ito, Ward – 41(4)(2), Mumbai Limitedshop No. 7, Appolo Arcade, R Vs Kautilya Bhavan Near Videsh K Singh Marg, Andheri (E), Mumbai – Bhavan, G Block Bkc, Bandra 400709. (East), Mumbai – 400051. [Pan: Aaicm3254F] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Ms. Dinkle Hariya, Advocate Revenue By Ms. Jayshree Thakur, Sr. Dr Date Of Institution 07.05.2026 Date Of Hearing 06.08.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 30.09.2026 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh; 1. This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhidated 27.03.2026 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Has Erred In Affirming With The Ld. Assessing Officer In Disallowing Deduction U/S 80P(2)(A)(I). 2. Your Appellant Further Reserves The Rights To Add, Amend Or Alter The Aforesaid Grounds Of Appeal As They May Think Fit By Themselves Or By Their Representatives.” 2. Rival Submissions Of Both The Parties Have Been Heard & The Record Perused.The Learned Authorised Representative (Ld. Ar) Of The Assessee Submits That The Assessee Is A Cooperative Credit Society. The Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of Accepting Deposits & Providing Credit Facilities To Its Members. The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened On The Basis Of Information That The Assessee Has Made Cash Deposits & No Monarch Co-Op Credit Society Limited

Section 144Section 254(1)Section 80ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

Abhishek Jayraj Karnani, Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward 3(3)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1500/AHD/2026[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Sept 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Judicialmember &Shri Gangadhar Panda

For Appellant: Shri Prakash D Shah & Shri Saiyam Shah, ARsFor Respondent: Ms. Madhulika Satpute, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 270(9)(c)Section 270ASection 270A(9)(c)Section 80G

Harbans Lal Dua, New Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose as per the above observations

ITA 5080/DEL/2026[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2026AY 2016-17
Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 250Section 69C

Naveen Chandrakar, Hyderabad vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward 5(3)(1), Bangalore, Karnataka

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2751/BANG/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Sept 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Balakrishnan S. & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: CA Bhuvan M., A.RFor Respondent: Sri Pradeep S., Addl. CIT-DR
Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 250

Sh. Chandra Shekhar Yadav, Howrah, (W.B) vs. Assessment Unit, Allahabad

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

ITA 25/ALLD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad29 Sept 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2012-13 Sh. Chandra Shekhar Yadav, Vs. Assessment Unit R/O, 152/3/4/1, Salkia School Road Howrah, West Bengal-711101 Pan: Aampy6717E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Sh. Kaushalendra Tewari, Cit Date Of Hearing: 07.09.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.09.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Dated 1101.2024, Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Assessing Officer, Passed Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144 R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The Assessment Year 2018-19 Dated 9.03.2023. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: - “1. That Having Regard To The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Assumption Of Initiating The Proceedings U/S 147 & Passing The Impugned Order U/S 143(3)/147 & That Too Without Complying With Mandatory Conditions U/S 147 To 151 As Envisaged Under The Income Tax Act, 1961, Is Bad In Law & Against The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. That In Any Case & In Any View Of The Matter, Without Service Of Notice & Without Providing An Opportunity Of Being Heard & Passing The Impugned Order U/S 147/144B, Is Illegal, Bad In Law & Against The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & The Same Is Not Sustainable On Various Legal & Factual Grounds.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Kaushalendra Tewari, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234A

K C Srinivasa Reddy HUF, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Central Circle -2(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2293/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Sept 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Balakrishnan S & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: AKXPK 1131 D
Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 2(13)Section 2(14)

Archana Gupta, New Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 52(1), Delhi, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3123/DEL/2026[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalarchana Gupta, Acit, B-27, Maharani Bagh, Circle-52(1), New Delhi-110065. Vs. Delhi. Pan-Aadpg4191K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 90

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Gultekdi, Pune vs. Jairaj Realty Unit 9LLP, Pune

In the result the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 713/PUN/2026[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Sept 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay N KapadiaFor Respondent: Shri Mithun Shete, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 148A

Kavita, Muzaffarnagar vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Muzaffarnagar

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

ITA 4477/DEL/2026[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: BAMPK7339B
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)

ACIT, Central Circle 1 Guwahati, Guwahati vs. Anil Kumar Jain, Assam

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the cross-objection of the assessee is also infructuous

ITA 182/GTY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati28 Sept 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahushri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 139(1)Section 156Section 250Section 69

Upasana Chopra, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corp Ward 12(1), Che

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3251/CHNY/2026[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Sept 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3251/Chny/2026 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 Upasana Chopra, Vs. The Ito, 1/5, Francis Joseph Street Non Corp Ward 12(1) Broadway, Chennai 600001, Chennai. Tamil Nadu-600001. [Pan: Aaipu2444C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Mr. Vivek, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Mr. Raj Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 15.07.2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 28.09.2026 : आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi:

For Appellant: Mr. Vivek, CAFor Respondent: Mr. Raj Kumar, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 148Section 69ASection 69C