Which cases are most cited on Section 139(1)?

CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (359 ITR 565) — 2,590 citing judgments; CIT v. AIMIL Ltd. (321 ITR 508) — 1,629 citing judgments; Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (143 Taxmann.com 178) — 1,392 citing judgments; CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (366 ITR 170) — 1,158 citing judgments; CIT v. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders (349 ITR 336) — 956 citing judgments.

How many judgments are there on Section 139(1)?

BharatTax indexes 8,117 ITAT, High Court and Supreme Court judgments that turn on Section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act

Q: What is the leading case on Section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act?

CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (359 ITR 565) is the decision most relied on for Section 139(1), cited in 2,590 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.

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)

Hira Lal Gupta, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 52(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2077/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Apr 2026AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 148Section 250

Rahul Saunik, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 24(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 61/MUM/2026[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Apr 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarrahul Saunik Ito Ward - 24(3)(1), 81 Santosh Tower, Mumbai Lokhandwala, 3Rd Cross Vs. Piramal Chamber, Lane, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400 012. Mumbai – 400 053 Pan/Gir No. Aslps2176G (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Jatin Shah, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 13.04.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 17.04.2026

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(2)Section 270A(2)(b)

Jignesh Manojkumar Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-41(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 9239/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Apr 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarjignesh Manojkumar Shah Ito, Ward-41(3)(2) 1105, Rustomjee Adarsh Excellency Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra (E), Chsl, Adarsh Dugdhalay Lane, Vs. Mumbai-400 051 Off Marve Road, Malad (W), Mumbai-400 064 Pan/Gir No. Aadps 6589 F (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Rajesh Shah Respondent By : Shri Nayanjyoti Nath-Sr. Ar Date Of Hearing : 12.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.04.2026 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against Order Dated 13.11.2025 Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short), Delhi For The Assessment Year (A.Y. For Short) 2021-22. 2. The Solitary Grievance Of The Assessee In The Present Appeal Is Addition Of Rs.3,80,560/- U/S. 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ For Short).

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Nayanjyoti Nath-Sr. AR

Section 139(1)Section 68

Sayeed Mukim Khan, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 4(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are allowed

ITA 8999/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Apr 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarnajmussaher Saeed Khan Asst. Cit, Central Circle-4(2) Room No. 12, 1St Floor, 262/280, Room No. 1918, Air India Building, Dawood Baug, Bapty Road, Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 008 Pan/Gir No. Brqpk 7919 C (Appellant) : (Respondent) Sayeed Mukim Khan Dy. Cit, Central Circle-4(2) 1St Floor, Bilal Masjid Compound, Room No. 1918, Air India Building, M. S. Road, Sonapur, Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 008 Pan/Gir No. Apqpk 4271 E (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Mumtaz Ahmad Respondent By : Shri Vivek Perampurna Date Of Hearing : 11.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.04.2026 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: Captioned Appeals Are By Two Different Assessees, Arising Out Of Two Separate Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Mumbai, Pertaining To The Assessment Year (A.Y. For Short) 2017-18. 2. The Common Issue Arising In Both The Appeals Relates To Addition Made Of Rs.15 Lacs Each In Case Of The Assessee’S As Unexplained Investment U/S. 69 Of The Income Tax Act

For Appellant: Shri Mumtaz AhmadFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 69

Mrs Najmussaher Saeed Khan, Mumbai vs. ACIT-CC 4(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are allowed

ITA 7822/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Apr 2026AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Mumtaz AhmadFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 69

M/S Pandit Electricals Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 3(3), Chandauli

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 19/VNS/2021[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi16 Apr 2026AY 2012-2013

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y.-2012-13 M/S Pandit Electricals Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 173, Madhyam Gram, South Ward-3(3), Chandauli Bireshpally, Near Vivekananda Sporting Club, Kolkata Pan: Aadcp8298D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Bipin Shankar Gupta, Advocate Revenue By: Sh. Sabyasachi Chakarborty, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.04.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Varanasi, Dated 18.09.2018, Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Orders Passed By The Ao Under Section 154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated 24.05.2017. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. Because Keeping In View The Facts & Circumstances, The Learned Cit (Appeals) Has Eared In Law As Well As On Facts In Upholding The Illegal Order Passed By The A O U/S 154 Of The Act. 2. Because Keeping In View The Facts & Circumstances, The Learned Appellate Authority Has Failed To Appreciate That There Was No Mistake Apparent On The Face Of Record So As To Justify The Action Of The A O U/S 154 Of The Act & The Provisions Of Section 40(A)(Ia)Of The Act Is Not Applicable To The Case. 3. Because The Learned Appellate Authority Has Eared In Not Appreciating The Direct Findings Of Learned Jurisdictional Ald. H. C In Cit Vs. Vector Shipping Services (P) Ltd. & Also Circular No. 10/Dv/2013[F.No.279/Misc/M- 61/2012-Itj(Ii)], Dated 16.12.2013 Issued By Cbdt Clarifying That Applicability Of Sec. 40(A)(Ia) Of The Act Has Conflicting Interpretations By Judicial Authorities & Hence Out Of Purview Of Sec. 154 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Sh. Bipin Shankar Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Sabyasachi Chakarborty, Sr. DR

Section 154Section 40

Primary Agricultural Co-Operative Society Limited Nusthulapur, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Karimnagar

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

ITA 1792/HYD/2025[2021-22]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad16 Apr 2026AY 2021-22

Section 119(2)(b)Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 80ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

M/S Varsha Construction vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle - 1(1)

In the result, the appeal is allowed to the extent indicated herein-

TAXC/133/2025HC Chhattisgarh15 Apr 2026

For Appellant: Mr. Nikhilesh Begani and Mr. Apurv Goyal, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Mr. Ajay Kumrani, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Amit

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 246ASection 260ASection 36(1)(va)

Maa Harsiddhi Infra Developers Private Limited vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Incime Tax

In the result, the appeal is allowed to the extent indicated herein-

TAXC/152/2025HC Chhattisgarh15 Apr 2026

For Appellant: Mr. Vaibhav Tiwari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Ajay Kumrani, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Amit

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 246ASection 260ASection 36(1)(va)

Aml Motors Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1558/HYD/2025[2023-2024]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Apr 2026AY 2023-2024

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1558/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2023-24) Aml Motors (P) Ltd Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Hyderabad Income Tax Pan:Aavca3479R Circle-1, Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas, Ca & Ca Mrudulatha राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr.Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 08/04/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 15/04/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, CA & CAFor Respondent: : Dr.Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR

Section 80J

Aml Motors Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1558/HYD/2025[2023-2024]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Apr 2026AY 2023-2024

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, CA & CAFor Respondent: : Dr.Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR

Section 80J

Sanhati Infocom Services Private Limited, West Bengal vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(4), Durgapur., West Bengal

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3022/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Apr 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Sanhati Infocom Services Private Limited Ito, Ward 2(4), Durgapur 2, Devi Choudhurani Path, Sail Aaykar Bhawan, City Centre Co-Operative Housing Colony, Vs. Durgapur-734101, West Bengal City Centre, Durgapur-713216, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaics7843J Assessee By : Shri Manish Rastogi, Ar Revenue By : Shri Susanta Saha, Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.04.2026

For Appellant: Shri Manish Rastogi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Susanta Saha, DR

Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 69A

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi vs. Flour Transworld Services Inc., United States

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITITA 36/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Apr 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhit(It)A No.- 36/Del/2025 [Assessment Year: 2012-13] Acit, Circle (It)-1(3)(1) Flour Transworld Services Inc. Room No. 501, D Block Civic Cybercitylas Colinas, Boulevard Centre, New Delhi- 110002 Vs Irving, Texas, U.S. Pan-Aabcf5074F Revenue Assessee

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 9(1)(vii)

Meenu Malhotra, Kanpur vs. Income Tax Officer, NFAC, Delhi

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 59/LKW/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow10 Apr 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2013-14 Meenu Malhotra V. The Income Tax Officer 99, Hig, Ratan Lal Nagar Kanpur Kanpur (U.P) Tan/Pan:Afupm0622H (Applicant) (Respondent) Applicant By: Shri Vikas Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Amit Kumar, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 09.05.2024, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For Assessment Year 2013-14. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Her Original Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 31.07.2013, Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.24,97,360/-. Subsequently, The Assessee Filed A Revised Return Of Income On 31.05.2014, Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.2,82,680/-. In The Original Return Of Income Filed On 31.07.2013, The Assessee Offered Long Term Capital Gain For Taxation. However, In The Revised Return Of Income Filed On 31.05.2014, The Assessee Had Claimed Exemption Under Section 54F Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’) Amounting To Rs.23,59,223/-.

For Respondent: Shri Amit Kumar, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 54F

Shri Navda Mahila Doodh Utpadak Sahkari Mandli Limited, Junagadh vs. The ITO Ward-1, Junagadh

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, in ITA No

ITA 617/RJT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot10 Apr 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपील सं./ Ita No. 604/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Income Tax Officer, Shri Navda Mahila Doodh Utpadak Bhutnath Chambers College Sahkari Mandali Limited, Road, Junagadh, Co. Popatbhai P Bharai, At. Navda, Tal. Vs. Gujarat-362001 Vanthali, Junagadh, Gujarat – 362610 Pan/Gir No.: Aatas6002N (Assessee) (Respondent) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No. 617/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Shri Navda Mahila Doodh Utpadak Income Tax Officer, Bhutnath Chambers College Sahkari Mandali Limited, Co. Popatbhai P Bharai, At. Navda, Tal. Road, Junagadh, Vs. Vanthali, Junagadh, Gujarat - 362610 Gujarat-362001 Pan/Gir No.: Aatas6002N (Assessee) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri D. M. Rindani & Ms. Devina Patel, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr.DR

Section 147Section 250Section 69ASection 80P

Income Tax Officer, Junagadh vs. Shri Navda Mahila Doodh Utpadak Sahkari Mandli Limited, Vanthali Junagadh Gujarat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, in ITA No

ITA 604/RJT/2025[2018]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot10 Apr 2026

For Appellant: Shri D. M. Rindani & Ms. Devina Patel, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr.DR

Section 147Section 250Section 69ASection 80P

Savitri Bai Jhawar Sewa Nyas, Khandwa vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemption), Indore

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 753/IND/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Indore10 Apr 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2020-21 Savitri Bai Jhawar Sewa Ito (Exemption ) Nyas, Indore Viklang Bal Sewa Ashram, बनाम/ Bt College Road, Vs. Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaats5055P Assessee By Shri Apurva Mehta & Shri Rajesh Mehta, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.04.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 10.04.2026

Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)(b)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154

Pragnesh Amrutlal Gajjar, Ahmedabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(3)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2207/AHD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Apr 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Vihar Soni, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Kumar Agrawal, Sr. D.R

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 19Section 2Section 80CSection 80D

Sameer Satish Satpute, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, (It) Ward 4, Pune, B.O. Bhawan

In the result, the appeal of assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2933/PUN/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Apr 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2933/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2022-23 Sameer Satish Satpute, Ito, (It) Ward 4, Pune 39, Rakshak Society, Aundh, Pune-411027 Vs. Pan : Asops4608L अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kishor B Phadke Department By : Shri Harshit Bari Date Of Hearing : 25-02-2026 Date Of 10-04-2026 Pronouncement : आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 04.09.2025 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Pune-13 [“Cit(A)”] Pertaining To Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2022-23. 2. Briefly Stated, The Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Non- Resident Individual. During Fy 2021-22 Relevant To Ay 2022-23 Under Consideration, The Taxable Income Of The Assessee In India Comprised Of : (I) Rental Income From House Property In Pune; (Ii) Capital Gains From Stocks & Mutual Funds; (Iii) Dividend Income; (Iv) Fixed Deposits & (V) Nro Account Interest & Pass Through Income From Two Funds. For Ay 2022- 23, The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income U/S 139(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The “Act”) On 30.07.2022 Claiming Refund Of Rs.3,62,090/-. The Return Of The Assessee Was Processed By The Cpc, Bengaluru U/S 143(1) Of The Act Vide Intimation Order Dated 06.10.2023 Wherein The Ld. Cpc Assessed The Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs.5,37,30,540/- & Raised A Tax Demand Of Rs.35,68,200/-. On Going Through The Intimation, The Assessee Noticed That Though Gross Total Income Was Accepted, Income Adopted As Chargeable At Special Rate Was Incorrect. As Per The Order Of 2

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Harshit Bari

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154

Expert Global Solutions Private Limited, Aurangabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1 Aurangabad, Aurangabad

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2557/PUN/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Apr 2026AY 2022-2023

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Rajat SoniFor Respondent: Shri Mukul Kulkarni (virtually)

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 44ASection 80J