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 Pearls Intercontinental Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 1883/DEL/2014[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Apr 2017AY 1996-97

Bench: Sh. I.C. Sudhir & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 1996-97 Vs. Dcit, Circle – 14(1), New Delhi M/S. Pearls Intercontinental Ltd., 112-A, Ekta Enclave, New Peera Garhi, New Delhi Pan : Aaacp6925A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Sanjay Kapoor, Ca Respondent By Mrs. Veena Joshi, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 23.03.2017 Date Of Pronouncement 21.04.2017 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against Order Dated 22/01/2014 Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Xvii, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi (In Short ‘The Cit-A’), For Assessment Year 1996-97, In Respect Of Penalty Levied Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’). The Grounds Of Appeal Raised Are As Under: 1. The Provisions Of Section 271(1)(C) Read With Section 275 Are Not Applicable At All. 2. There Is Neither Concealment Of Income Nor Appellant Has Filed Inaccurate Particulars Of Income, Thus The Provisions Of Section 271(1)(C) Are Not Applicable At All. 3. Without Prejudice To Ground That No Penalty Is Leviable, Cit(A) Has Erred In Enhancing The Penalty. 4. Bonafide Claim Made, Disallowed In Assessment Proceeding Does Not Attract Penalty At All. 5. The Cit(A) Has Erred In Holding That Appellant Has Not Furnished Any Explanation With Regard To Addition/Disallowance.

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 263Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 275

Abu Mansur Ali, Kolkata vs. DCIT, CC-Xviii, Kolkata

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

ITA 92/KOL/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Mar 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.92/Kol/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2009-2010) Abu Mansur Ali, Vs. Dcit, Cc-Xviii, Kolkata, Raigachi, Azadnagar, Rajarhat, 110, Shanti Pally, E.M.Bye Pass Kolkata-700135 Kasba, Kolkata-700107 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.: Ajwpa 0693 E .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.M.Surana, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 06/03/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 22/03/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2009-2010, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld. Cit(A), Central-Ii, Kolkata In Appeal No.94/Cc-Xviii/Cit(A)C-Ii/11-12, Dated 19.11.2013, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 31.12.2010. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Qua The Assessee Are That A Search & Seizure Operations U/S 132 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Were Conducted In The M/S.Kaushalya Infrastructure Group Of Cases On 26/27.03.2009 & On Subsequent Dates (At Certain Spots). This Included Search Also At The Residence Of The Assessee At Vill: Raigachi, Azad Nagar, Rajarhat, 24 Pgs(N), Kolkata-136 By Virtue Of A Search Warrant Dated 25.03.2009. During The Course Of Search Some Diaries & Documents/Papers Vide Id Marks Ama/L To Ama/7 As Per Annexure-'A' Were Found & Seized. Besides, Cash Of Rs.8,300/ Was Also Found But Hot Seized Vide Anneure-2

For Appellant: Shri S.M.surana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, JCIT
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 271A