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)

Pratik Bharat Shah, Mumbai vs. Asstt. CIT, Range- 16(3), Mumbai

ITA 3429/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shjoginder Singh & Rajendraआयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./3428 /Mum/2014,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2009-10 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Smt. Pratima B. Shah The Acit, Range-16(3) 2Nd Floor, Matru Mandir 194, Gaiwadi Compound, Girgaum Vs. Road,Mumbai-400 004. Mumbai-400 007. Pan:Aafps 3008 R आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./ 3429/Mum/2014,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2009-10 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Shri Pratik Bharat Shah The Acit, Range-16(3) 2Nd Floor, Matru Mandir 194, Gaiwadi Compound, Girgaum Vs. Road,Mumbai-400 004. Mumbai-400 007. Pan:Aagps 1424 C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Ganesh Bare-Dr Assessee By: S/Shri Vijay Mehta &Anuj Kishnadwala-Ar’S सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 25.05.2016 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 20.07.2016 आयकर आयकर अिधिन यम,1961 क" क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आयकर आयकर अिधिन अिधिनयम अिधिन यम यम क" क" धारा धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Per Rajendra, Am- अनुसार Challenging The Orders,Dated 14.2.14,Of The Cit(A)-27,Mumbai The Assessees Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals.As The Same Issue-Levy Of Penalty U/S.271(1)(C)(1)(C) Of The Act-Is Involved In Both The Cases & The Assessees Are Members Of The Same Family,So,We Are Adjudicating Both The Appeals By A Single Order.

For Appellant: S/Shri Vijay Mehta &Anuj Kishnadwala-AR’sFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh Bare-DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 142(2)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 23Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)

Pratima B. Shah, Mumbai vs. Asstt. CIT, Range- 16(3), Mumbai

ITA 3428/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shjoginder Singh & Rajendraआयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./3428 /Mum/2014,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2009-10 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Smt. Pratima B. Shah The Acit, Range-16(3) 2Nd Floor, Matru Mandir 194, Gaiwadi Compound, Girgaum Vs. Road,Mumbai-400 004. Mumbai-400 007. Pan:Aafps 3008 R आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./ 3429/Mum/2014,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2009-10 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Shri Pratik Bharat Shah The Acit, Range-16(3) 2Nd Floor, Matru Mandir 194, Gaiwadi Compound, Girgaum Vs. Road,Mumbai-400 004. Mumbai-400 007. Pan:Aagps 1424 C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Ganesh Bare-Dr Assessee By: S/Shri Vijay Mehta &Anuj Kishnadwala-Ar’S सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 25.05.2016 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 20.07.2016 आयकर आयकर अिधिन यम,1961 क" क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आयकर आयकर अिधिन अिधिनयम अिधिन यम यम क" क" धारा धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Per Rajendra, Am- अनुसार Challenging The Orders,Dated 14.2.14,Of The Cit(A)-27,Mumbai The Assessees Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals.As The Same Issue-Levy Of Penalty U/S.271(1)(C)(1)(C) Of The Act-Is Involved In Both The Cases & The Assessees Are Members Of The Same Family,So,We Are Adjudicating Both The Appeals By A Single Order.

For Appellant: S/Shri Vijay Mehta &Anuj Kishnadwala-AR’sFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh Bare-DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 142(2)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 23Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)

Sri Manab Kejriwal, Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-49(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 698/KOL/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jul 2016AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.698/Kol/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2009-2010) Sri Manab Kejriwal, Block-9, Flat Vs. Income Tax Officer, No.5H, 5Th Floor, Space Town Ward-49(2), Kolkata Housing Complex, V.I.P. Road, Kolkata-170052 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Awjpk 1519 R .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.M.Surana राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S. Srivastava सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 06/06/2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 15/07/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed (A.M.): The Assessee Has Preferred This Appeal Against The Order Vide Memo No. Cit-Xvii/U/S263/2012-13/1154-1157 Dated 26-2-2014, Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax-Xvii, (Cit For Short) Kolkata, Relating To Assessment Year 2009-2010, On The Following Grounds :- 1. For That The Order Of The Ld. Cit (A) Is Arbitrary, Illegal & Bad In Law. 2. For That The Ld. C.I.T Erred In Passing The Order U/ S. 263 When The Assessee Did Not File Any Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration, The Issue Was Not Examined By The Ao , The Assessment Was Completed Which Itself Was Bad In Law & Therefore The Entire Proceedings U/S. 263 Are Also Void-Ab Initio. 3. For That The Ld. C.I.T Erred In Exercising Jurisdiction U/S. 263 When All The Issues Raised In The Show Cause Notice Had Been Considered & Categorically Spelt Out By The Ao In His Order Passed U/S. 144, Duly Examined By Him Since The Assessment Itself Was Taken Up For Scrutiny Only On The Basis Of The Air Information In Respect Of The Impugned Amounts. 4. For That The Ld. Cit Himself Should Have Decided The Issue, Call For The Records & Examined The Same When The Specific Issue Was Taken Up Before The Ld. Cit That The Appellant Did Not File Any Return.

For Appellant: Shri S.M.SuranaFor Respondent: Shri S. Srivastava
Section 139(1)Section 140Section 144Section 263