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)

Cigniti Technologies Limited, Hyderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 527/HYD/2021[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 Feb 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godaraassessment Year: 2019-20 M/S. Cigniti Technologies Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Limited, Of Income Tax, Hyderabad – 500082. Circle-1(1), Hyderabad. Pan : Aabcc1969J. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao. Revenue By: Shri Sunil Gowtham. Date Of Hearing: 10.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.02.2022 O R D E R Per S. S. Godara, J.M. This Assessee’S Appeal For A.Y. 2019-20 Arises From The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi’S Order Dated 09.11.2021 In Case No.Itba/ Nfac/S/250/2021-22/1036793544(1) Involving Proceedings U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short, ‘The Act’]. 2. Coming To The Sole Substantive Issue Of Esi/Pf Disallowance Of Rs.52,75,976/- Made In Both The Lower Proceedings, The Assessee’S & Revenue’S Plea(S) Before Us Are That The Same Had Been Paid Before The Due Date Of Filing Sec.139(1) Return & After The Due Date Prescribed In The Corresponding Statutes; Respectively. We Notice In This Factual Backdrop That The Legislature Has Not Only Incorporated Necessary Amendment In Sections 36(1)(Va) As Well As U/S. 43B Vide Finance Act, 2021 To This Effect But Also The Cbdt Has Issued Memorandum Of Explanation That The Same Applies W.E.F. 01-04-2021. It Is Further Not An Issue That The Foregoing Legislative Amendments Have Proposed Employers’ Contribution / Disallowance U/S.43B As Against Employee’S Contribution U/S.36(Va) Of The Act; Respectively. However, Keeping In Mind The Fact That The Same Has Been Clarified To Be Applicable Only With Prospective Effect From 01- 04-2021, We Hold That The Impugned Disallowance Is Not Sustainable In View Of All These Latest Developments. The Impugned Esi/Pf Disallowance Is Deleted Therefore.

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Gowtham
Section 139(1)Section 250Section 36Section 43B

Cogwheel Facility Management Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1838/DEL/2020[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Feb 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2018-19 Cogwheel Facility Management Pvt. Vs Dcit, Ltd., J-128/1, 2Nd Floor, Cpc, Mohammadpur Village, Bangalore. Near Bhikaji Cama Place, Rk Puram, New Delhi. Pan: Aagcc1517K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ruchesh Sinha, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : .02.2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27Th August, 2020 Of The Cit(A)-2, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under:- “1. That The Ld.Cit(A) Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Upholding The Order Of The Ao, Passed Under Section 154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Upholding The Addition Of Rs.23,55,432/- Made By Ao By Invoking The Provisions Of Section 36(1)(Va) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 3. That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Ignoring The Well- Established Judicial Pronouncements Including That Of The Jurisdictional High Court. 4. That The Impugned Appellate Order Is Arbitrary, Illegal, Bad In Law & The Violation Of Rudimentary Principle Of Contemporary Jurisprudence. 5. That The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Amend, Alter, Vary And/Or Withdraw Any Or All The Above Grounds Of Appeal Before Or At The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal.”

For Appellant: Shri Ruchesh Sinha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B