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)

The Braithwaite Burn & Jessop Construction Company Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 11(1), Kolkata

Appeal is allowed

ITA 985/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Nov 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S, Godaraassessment Year:2012-13 The Braithwaite Burn & Income Tax Officer, बनाम / Jessop Construction Co. Ward-11(1), Aayakar V/S. Ltd. [In The Case Of Bharat Bhawan, P-7, Bhari Udyog Nigam Ltd. Chowringhee Square, Amalgamating Co.] 27, Kolkata-69 R.N. Mukherjee Road, Kolkata-700 001 [Pan No.Aaact 9760B] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Miss. Ananya Rath, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Saurav Kumar, Addl. Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 06-11-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 14-11-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13 Is Directed Against The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-4, Kolkata’S Order Dated 13.02.2018 Passed In Case No.744/Cit(A)-4/W-11(1)/15-16 Involving Proceedings U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. The Assessee’S First Former Substantive Ground On Merits Seeks To Challenge Both The Lower Authorities’ Action Disallowing 0.5% Of Average Investments Under Rule 8D(2)(Iii) Of The Income Tax Rule, 1962 R.W.S 14A Of The Act. As Per Assessment Order Dated 30.03.2015 The Revenue’S Case Is That Assessee Had Invested An Amount Of ₹45,84,51,220/- In The Relevant Previous Year For Earning Exempt Income. If Fails To Dispute That There Is No Exempt Income Recorded To Have Been Derived In The Relevant Previous Year In Assessment Order. I Therefore Follow Hon'Ble Jurisdictional High

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iv)

ACIT Corporate Circle 6(1), Chennai vs. Sanmina Sci Technology India Pvt Ltd., Kancheepuram

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

ITA 917/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Oct 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.917/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S. Sanmina Sci Technology India Pvt. Income Tax, Corporate Circle 6(1), Vs. Ltd., Oz-1, Sipcot Hi-Tech Sez, Aayakar Bhavan, Wanaparthy Block, Oragadam, Sriperumbudur Taluk, 7Th Floor, 121, M.G. Road, Chennai 34. Kancheepuram Dt., Tamil Nadu 602 105. [Pan:Aakcs8133K] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 16.08.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.10.2018 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) 15, Chennai Dated 30.11.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2013-14. In This Appeal, The Revenue Has Raised Two Effective Grounds Viz., (I) The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Directing The Assessing Officer To Exclude The Expenses Incurred In Foreign Currency Both From Export Turnover As Well As From The Total Turnover & (Ii) The Ld. Cit(A)

For Appellant: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCITFor Respondent: Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)