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)

Mody Autocorp Private Limited, Secunderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in above terms

ITA 478/HYD/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Jan 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2018-19 Mody Autocorp Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Secunderabad. Income-Tax, Circle – 5(1), Hyderabad. Pan – Aajcm0293M 0(Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Darshan Jakharia Revenue By: Shri Rohit Mujumdar Date Of Hearing: 05/01/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 06/01/2022 O R D E R Per Bench.: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against Cit(A)’S National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Order For Ay 2018-19 Involving Proceedings U/S 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Only Issue Involved In This Appeal Is That The Addition Towards Employees’ Contribution To Pf & Esi On The Ground Of Late Payment Of The Same.

For Appellant: Shri Darshan JakhariaFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Mujumdar
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 43B

Jvp Soft Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 805/HYD/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Jan 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonya.Y. 2008-09 Jvp Soft Private Limited, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward-2(1), Pan: Aaacj 5094 J Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri T. Rajendra Prasad Revenue By Shri Sunil Gowtam, Dr Date Of Hearing: 10/11/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 06/01/2022 Order

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 80ISection 92E

M/S. Shabari Enterprises, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 482/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore06 Jan 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Ashwin D.Rao, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Besaganni, JCIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

M/S. Shabari Enterprises, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 481/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore06 Jan 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Ashwin D.Rao, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Besaganni, JCIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Sh. Santosh Mahla, Prop. Pc Manpower Solution, F-1/203 Eldeco Eden Park, Neemrana, Alwar vs. CPC, Bengaluru/ ITO, Ward-Behror, Alwar

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 252/JPR/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Jan 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Due Date Of Filing Of Return Of Income U/S 139(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act).

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (JCIT)
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 3Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Acme Formulation Private Limited, Chandigarh vs. DCIT Circle 2 (1), Chandigarh

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

ITA 347/CHANDI/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh05 Jan 2022AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Priyanka Dhar, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154

M/S Globe Precision Industries Pvt. Ltd., Solan vs. DCIT/ACIT Circle, Parwanoo

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 342/CHANDI/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh05 Jan 2022AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Vineet Krishan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyanka Dhar, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

Tiriyogi Narayan Singh, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle-28, Kolkata

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

ITA 245/KOL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Tiriyogi Narayan Singh Acit, Circle-28, Kolkata C/O. Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates Vs. Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata – 700069. Pan: Apmps8395D (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate Respondent By : Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit. Date Of Hearing : 13.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.01.2022 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Passed U/S 250 Of The Act Dated 26.07.2021 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As The Cit(A)] Relevant To Ay 2014-15. 2. The Issue Raised In Ground No. 1 Is Against The Order Of Cit(A) Upholding The Order Of Ao Confirming The Disallowance Of Rs. 24,286/- On Account Of Delayed Payment Of Employee’S Contribution To Provident Fund & Esi.

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT
Section 139(1)Section 250Section 43B

Vidhi Clothing Company, Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 424/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jan 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sankarganesh K, JCIT (DR)
Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 234ASection 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

The Jabo Majro Co-Operative Labour and Construction Society Ltd., Malerkotla vs. ITO, Malerkotla

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

ITA 361/CHANDI/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Jan 2022AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Atul Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjeet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)

Himalayan Buddhist Cultural Association, Kullu vs. ACIT, Circle/DCIT CPC, Bengluru, Mandi

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

ITA 177/CHANDI/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Jan 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Due Date Of Filling Of Income Tax Return Was On Bonafide Grounds, The Cit(A) Has Erred In Not Condoning The Delay.

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manveet Singh Sehgal, Addl. CIT
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 139Section 139(1)Section 142Section 143(1)

Bi Worldwide India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 433/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jan 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri C.R Krishna, CA
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Genworks Health Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 469/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore03 Jan 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri K.R Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Besaganni, JCIT (DR)
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2Section 36(1)(va)Section 6

Vikram Harshadbhai Modi, Surat vs. ITO Ward 3(1)(5), Surat

In the result, Ground No.2 and 3 of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 196/SRT/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Dec 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Shri Vikram Harshadbhai The Income Tax Officer Modi, Ward-3(1)(5), Aaykar Vs 7/2737, Chandulal Sheth Ni Bhavan, Majura Gate, Sheri, Saiyedpura, Surat-395001 Surat-395003 Pan : Alhpm 2036 Q Assessee / Appellant Revenue /Respondent

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 194CSection 254(1)Section 44A

Dinesh Chandra Semwal, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 28(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 21/DEL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Dec 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

M/S. Vijay Samraj Hotels Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 504/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Dec 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2019-20 M/S. Vijay Samraj Hotels P. The Assistant Ltd., Commissioner Of No. 18, 3Rd Main Road, Income Tax, Gandhinagar, Cpc, Bangalore – 560 009. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aabcv4731B Appellant Respondent Shri S.V. Ravishankar, Assessee By : Advocate & Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, Ca : Shri Raghavendra Rao, Addl. Revenue By Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 01-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-12-2021 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal By The Assessee Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 30.07.2021 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2019-20 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Impugned Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) National Faceless Appeal Centre, Bengaluru Karnataka Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Is Opposed To Law, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case.

For Appellant: Advocate & Ms. Sunaina
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Shand Pipe Industry Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (CPC), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 412/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Dec 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George Kassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri H Ananda, Addl.CIT (DR)
Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 234BSection 250Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Kuduma Labour Contract, Bengaluru vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward 4(3)(2), Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 643/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore23 Dec 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2019-20 M/S. Kuduma Labour Contract, Vs. Ito, No.69/1, 35Th Main, 7Th Cross, Ward – 4(3)(2), Btm Layout 2Nd Stage, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 068. Pan : Aajfk 5289 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Rajashekar, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel For The Department Date Of Hearing : 23.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2021 O R D E R Er N. V. Vasudevanthis Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against Order Dated 23.09.2021 Of Cit(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. The Assessee Is A Company. The Assessee Filed Return Of Income For Ay 2019-20 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.3,71,810/-. In An Intimation Dated 22.02.2020 Issued U/S.143(1) Of The Act, The Centralized Processing Centre (Cpc) Added A Sum Of Rs.14,77,428/- Representing Employees’ Share Of Contribution To Esi To The Extent Not Paid On Or Before The Due Date As Mentioned In Sec 36(1)(Va) Of The Income Tax Act 1961. 3. It Was The Case Of The Assessee That Employees’ Share Of Esi Has Been Paid Before The Due Date For Filing Of Return U/S.139(1) Of The Act (This Fact Is Not In Dispute) & Hence Has Been Considered Allowable On The Basis Of Page 2 Of 6

For Appellant: Shri. Rajashekar, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for the Department
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

M/S. Anubis Detective & Guarding Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(2) Through the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 632/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore23 Dec 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Anubis Detective & Guarding Vs. Ito, Services Private Limited, Ward – 1(1)(2) Through No.37, 1St Floor, 9Th B Cross, Dcit, Wilson Garden, Central Processing Centre, Bengaluru – 560 027. Bengaluru. Pan : Aafca 4501 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. S. V. Ravishankar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel For The Department Date Of Hearing : 23.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2021 O R D E R Er N. V. Vasudevanthis Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against Order Dated 24.09.2021 Of Cit(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Is A Private Limited Company. The Assessee Filed Return Of Income For Ay 2018-19 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.7,53,696/-. In An Intimation Dated 16.10.2019 Issued U/S.143(1) Of The Act, The Centralized Processing Centre (Cpc) Added A Sum Of Rs. 12,50,435/- Representing Employees’ Share Of Contribution To Esi To The Extent Not Paid On Or Before The Due Date As Mentioned In Sec 36(1)(Va) Of The Income Tax Act 1961. 3. It Was The Case Of The Assessee That Employees’ Share Of Esi Has Been Paid Before The Due Date For Filing Of Return U/S.139(1) Of The Act (This Fact Is Not In Dispute) & Hence Has Been Considered Allowable On The Basis Of Page 2 Of 6

For Appellant: Shri. S. V. Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for the Department
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

M/S. Methods (India) Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(2), Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 626/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore23 Dec 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2019-20 M/S. Methods (India) Private Limited, Vs. 1. Dcit, #4A, Kiadb Industrial Area, Circle – 4(1)(2), Hosakote Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 562 114. Pan : Aabcm 8680 N 2. Cpc, Bengaluru. Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel For The Department Date Of Hearing : 22.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2021 O R D E R Er N. V. Vasudevanthis Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against Order Dated 12.11.2021 Of Cit(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. The Assessee Is A Private Limited Company. The Assessee Filed Return Of Income For Ay 2019-20 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.Nil. In An Intimation Dated 29.06.2020 Issued U/S.143(1) Of The Act, The Centralized Processing Centre (Cpc) Added A Sum Of Rs. 46,87,690/- Representing Employees’ Share Of Contribution To Esi To The Extent Not Paid On Or Before The Due Date As Mentioned In Sec 36(1)(Va) Of The Income Tax Act 1961. 3. It Was The Case Of The Assessee That Employees’ Share Of Esi Has Been Paid Before The Due Date For Filing Of Return U/S.139(1) Of The Act (This Fact Is Not In Dispute) & Hence Has Been Considered Allowable On The Basis Of Page 2 Of 6

For Appellant: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for the Department
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B