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)

Shri Sajjan Agarwal, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle-3(4), Kolkata

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

ITA 2476/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Mar 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey) Assessment Year: 2015-16 & S.A. No.114/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Sajjan Agarwal..........………………………………………..................................……………..….......Appellant 49A, Tollygunge Circular Road New Alipore Kolakta – 700 053 [Pan : Adkpa 4768 J] Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cc-3(4), Kolkata……........................….…….....…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sunil Surana, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Jayanta Khanra, Jcit D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 5Th, 2020 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 13Th, 2020 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 21, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The “Ld.Cit(A)”), Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’), Dt. 21/10/2019, For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income On 31/08/2015 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.11,58,890/-. He Declared Income From Salary & Other Sources & Claimed Exemption Under The Head Long Term Capital Gain. The Assessing Officer Completed Assessment U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 27/12/2017 Determining The Total Income At Rs.92,98,480/-. Aggrieved The Assessee Carried The Matter In Appeal Without Success. 3. Further Aggrieved, The Assessee Is Before Us. 4. The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee, Shri Sunil Surana, Submitted That The Assessee Purchased 12000 Shares Of Gcm Securities Ltd @ Rs.20/ - Each On Preferential Allotment For A Total Consideration Of Rs. 2,40,000/- On 27.3.2013 For Which Payment Was Made By Account Payee Cheque. Subsequently, Those Shares Were Split Into The Ratio

Section 10(38)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 250

DCIT, Ncc - 2 (1), Chennai vs. Shri Sailendra Kumar Kethineni, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the CO filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2263/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Feb 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru R.L. Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2263/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 & C.O. No. 104/Chny/2019 [In I.T.A. No. 2263/Chny/2019] The Deputy Commissioner Of Shri Sailendra Kumar Kethineni, Income Tax Vs. No. 61, Greenways Road, R.A. Puram, Non Corporate Circle 2(1), Chennai 600 028. Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aafpk8983P] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (Respondent/Cross Objector) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Abani Kanta Nayak, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M. Karunakaran, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 18.02.2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.02.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: The Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 2, Chennai Dated 10.04.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2012-13. 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 Pf/Esi & Treating The Sale Of Land In Sholinganallur As Capital Asset On The Basis Of Book Entry Without Appreciating That Book Entries Are Not Determinative Of Income Of Assessee.

For Appellant: Shri Abani Kanta Nayak, CITFor Respondent: Shri M. Karunakaran, Advocate
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 43B