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 Dreamax Infra Developers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 160/JPR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Aug 2020AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Shri K.C. Gupta, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 145(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

Usha Vitthal Kharate, Nashik vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 3, Nashik

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1606/PUN/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Aug 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: Shri Prathamesh J. Lawand
Section 139(1)Section 271FSection 273B

Amith Software Technologies Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-1(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 2805/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Shri B.R. Baskaran, Accoutant Member Assessmentyear:2008-09

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, D.R
Section 10ASection 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147

M/S Vishwas Builders vs. The Commissioner of Income-Tax

Appeal stands disposed of

ITA/51/2012HC Karnataka29 Jul 2020

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,M.I.ARUN

Section 139(1)Section 260Section 263Section 40

Johnson Controls (India) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 10(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1502/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Mr. Nikhil Tiwari, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Anand Mohan, CIT DR
Section 143(3)

Baidya Nath Dey, Burdwan vs. I.T.O., Ward-1(3), Durgapur

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

ITA 331/KOL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Jul 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz)] [Through Virtual Court] I.T.A. No. 331/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Baidya Nath Dey.....................................…………………………..............................................Appellant 50, Ukhra Station Road, Ukhra, West Burdwan – 713363. [Pan: Ahppd 0247 E] Vs Ito, Ward 1(3), Durgapur...................…………………………………………………...........Respondent Aayakar Bhawan, Aayakar Bithi, City Centre, Durgapur – 713216. Appearances By: Shri Suvo Chakraborty, Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 21, 2020 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 24, 2020 Order This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) – Durgapur Dated 31.01.2020 & The Solitary Issue Involved Therein Relates To The Addition Of Rs. 15,13,000/- Made By The Ao & Confirmed By The Ld. Cit(A) On Account Of Cash Deposits Found To Be Made By The Assessee In His Bank Accounts By Treating The Same As Unexplained.

Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 148

ITO, Corporate Ward - 2 (2), Chennai vs. Smt. Rekha Shetty, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objections filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2777/CHNY/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Jul 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S.Jayaraman & C.O. No.106/Chny/2019 Assessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Mr.G.Baskar,AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Vijaya Prabha,Addl.CIT,D.R
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 54Section 54F

Nagravision India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1536/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jul 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B R Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri Pradhan Dass, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR-I)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Advent Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 400/JPR/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Jul 2020AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Amrish Bedi (CIT DR)
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 2Section 40

M/S, Forte Foliage Pvt. Ltd, 217, Laxmi Complex, M.I. Road, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 617/JPR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jun 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: The End Of The Financial Year Itself & Therefore, The Payment Was Made Much Before The Due Date Of Filing Of Return Of Income U/S 139(1)

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri K.C. Gupta (JCIT)
Section 139(1)Section 37(1)

Shri Om Prakash Jajodia, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2-3, Jaipur

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

ITA 1089/JPR/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Jun 2020AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Adv)For Respondent: Ms. Chanchal Meena (Addl.CIT)
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148

Earth Minerals Company Limited, Jharsuguda vs. DCIT, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela

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

ITA 63/CTK/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack18 Jun 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.63/Ctk/2020 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013) Earth Minerals Co. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Rourkela Circle, Plot No.38(P), Village-Kirarama, Rourkela Post-Bandhbahal, Tehsil-Lakhanpur, District-Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aabce 2015 K (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Mohit Sheth, Advocate िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.K.Bandyopadhyay, Dr सुनवाई की तािीख / Date Of Hearing : 17/06/2020 घोषणा की तािीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18/06/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 10.01.2020 Passed By The Cit(A), Cuttack For The Assessment Year 2014-2015. 2. At The Outset, Ld. Ar Submitted That The Cit(A) Has Passed The Ex- Parte Order Without Providing Any Opportunity Of Hearing. Therefore, The Ld. Ar Prayed For An Opportunity To Represent Its Case Before The Cit(A). 3. Ld. Dr Relied On The Order Of Cit(A) & Submitted That The Cit(A) Has Passed Order After Considering The Material Available On Record. Hence, The Appeal Of The Assessee Deserves To Be Dismissed.

For Appellant: Shri Mohit Sheth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.K.Bandyopadhyay, DR
Section 139(1)

Banyan Sustainable Waste Managament Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Warangal

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 362/HYD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Jun 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyassessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Banyan Sustainable Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Waste Management Pvt Income Tax, Ltd., Hyderabad. Circle-1, Pan: Aafcb 5861 L Warangal. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri Gopichand Bhattaram Revenue By: Sri Sunil Kumar Pandey, Dr Date Of Hearing: 30/01/2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 18/06/2020 Order Per A. Mohan Alankamony, Am.:

For Appellant: Sri Gopichand BhattaramFor Respondent: Sri Sunil Kumar Pandey, DR
Section 13Section 139(1)Section 139(3)Section 139(5)Section 143(3)

Manish Soni, Jorhat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4, Jorhat

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 230/GTY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati17 Jun 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 80Section 80I

DCIT Corporate Circle 5(1), Chennai vs. Repco Home Finance P Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA no

ITA 2885/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Jun 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: JCITFor Respondent: Shri M. Viswanathan, C.A
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 36(1)(viii)

Brig. Narayan Nayak, Bhubaneswar vs. ACIT-5(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, ITA No.30/CTK/2017 is partly allowed for

ITA 230/CTK/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack05 Jun 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.30/Ctk/2017 & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.230/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013) Brig. Narayan Nayak, Vs. Dcit, Circle-5(1), Prop: M/S Industrial Security & Bhubaneswar Allied Services, F3-F5, Id Market, Irc Village, Nayapalli, Bhubanesar-751015 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Abapn 3373 Q (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Sahoo, Ca िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Dutta, Dr सुनवाई की तािीख / Date Of Hearing : 25/02/2020 घोषणा की तािीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05/06/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am: The Assessee Has Filed The Above Two Appeals, One Is Against The Order Passed By The Cit(A)-2, Dated 27.10.2016 Arising Out Of The Order Passed By The Ao U/S.143(3) Of The Act & Another Is Against The Order Passed By The Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, Dated 14.04.2019 Arising Out Of The Order Passed By The Ao U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Act. 2. First We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.30/Ctk/2017, Wherein The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds :-

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Sahoo, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 40Section 43BSection 44A

Brig.Narayan Nayak, Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT, Circle-5(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, ITA No.30/CTK/2017 is partly allowed for

ITA 30/CTK/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack05 Jun 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.30/Ctk/2017 & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.230/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013) Brig. Narayan Nayak, Vs. Dcit, Circle-5(1), Prop: M/S Industrial Security & Bhubaneswar Allied Services, F3-F5, Id Market, Irc Village, Nayapalli, Bhubanesar-751015 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Abapn 3373 Q (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Sahoo, Ca िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Dutta, Dr सुनवाई की तािीख / Date Of Hearing : 25/02/2020 घोषणा की तािीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05/06/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am: The Assessee Has Filed The Above Two Appeals, One Is Against The Order Passed By The Cit(A)-2, Dated 27.10.2016 Arising Out Of The Order Passed By The Ao U/S.143(3) Of The Act & Another Is Against The Order Passed By The Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, Dated 14.04.2019 Arising Out Of The Order Passed By The Ao U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Act. 2. First We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.30/Ctk/2017, Wherein The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds :-

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Sahoo, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 40Section 43BSection 44A

All Rajasthan State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur Employees Association, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemption), Ward - 1, Jaipur

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

ITA 851/JPR/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Jun 2020AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Smt. Neelam Bhala (CA)For Respondent: Mrs. Chanchal Meena (Addl.CIT)
Section 10(24)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148

DCIT, Corporate Circle-3, Chennai vs. Cema Electric Lighting Products India Ltd, Chennai

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

ITA 18/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 May 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 18/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Cema Electric Lighting Products Income Tax, Vs. India Ltd., 10, Anna Avenue, Corporate Circle 1(2), Bhakthavatsalam Nagar, Adyar, Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 020 [Pan: Aaccc9663Q] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. R. Anita, Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, Fca सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 20.05.2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.05.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Chennai Dated 27.10.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2014-15. The Effective Grounds Raised By The Revenue Are That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Made In Respect Of Employees Contribution Towards Provident Fund As Well As Deleting The Disallowance Of ₹.5.07 Crores Made In Respect Of The Disproportionate Expenditure Towards Salary & Wages.

For Appellant: Ms. R. Anita, JCITFor Respondent: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, FCA
Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

M/S. Sheela Foam Ltd., Ghaziabad vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5417/DEL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 May 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, V.P & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh.H.K.Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 234BSection 36(1)Section 43B