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)

Adithya Vividhoddesha Sahakari Sangha Limited, Kundapura vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Udupi

In the result, Appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2269/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice –Assessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Adithya Vividhoddesha Sahakari Sanga Ltd., Post Hanglur, Kodi Road, The Income Tax Officer, Vaderhobli, Kundapura Taluk Ward-1 & Tps, Vs. (Udupi District), Udupi. Karnataka – 576 201. Pan: Aadaa4450C Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh R Uppin, Advocate
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 63Section 80ASection 80CSection 80P

M/S. Khemka Stuart Leisure Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 2360/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Feb 2026AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Naveen Chandraita No. 2360/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year: 2005-06 M/S Khemka Stuart Leisure Ltd., Vs Acit, B-8, Basement Floor, Ansal Tower, Central Circle-18, 38, Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaack4630P Assessee By : Sh. Rajeshwar Painuly, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Monika Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 05.02.2026 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2005-06 Arises Against The Cit(A)-Xxvii, New Delhi’S Dated 27.11.2014, In Case No. 407/13-14/Cit(A)-Xxvii/2014-15, In Proceedings U/S 143(3)/147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. Rajeshwar Painuly, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148

Income Tax Officer, Siwan vs. Ghanshyam Dwivedi, Hathuwa Gopalganj

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

ITA 503/PAT/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Patna04 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, VICE PRESIDENT SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU (Accountant Member)

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 148ASection 250Section 69C

Patan Education Society, Satara vs. ITO Exemption 1, Pune

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

ITA 705/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.705/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Patan Education Society, Vs. Ito (Exemption)-1, Shikka Mension, Patan S.O., Pune. Patan, Satara- 415206. Pan : Aaatp8412H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Prateek Jha & Shri Prayag Jha Revenue By : Shri Vinod Pawar Date Of Hearing : 08.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.02.2026 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 17.01.2025 Passed By Ld. Addl./Jcit(A)-2, Visakhapatnam [‘Ld. Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Ld Cit(A) Erred In Sustaining The Order Under Section 143(1) Without Appreciating That The Adjustment Made Was Beyond The Purview Of The Provisions Of Section 143(1).

For Appellant: Shri Prateek Jha &For Respondent: Shri Vinod Pawar
Section 11Section 11(2)(c)Section 12ASection 13(9)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)

S55 Keerippatty Primary Agricultural Co Op Credit Society Limitedq, Salem vs. ITO, Ward 1(6), Salem

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 3431/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr. Bhupendran, Advocate &For Respondent: Mr. Kumar Chandan, JCIT
Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 80P

Sri Jssdj Educational Health and Charitable Trust, Villupuram vs. ITO, Exemptions Ward-1, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2918/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Ms.Nidhi Jain, CAFor Respondent: Mr.K. Ilaiyaraja, Addl.CIT
Section 12ASection 139Section 139(1)Section 148Section 271FSection 272A(2)(e)Section 274

K V Tex Firm, Chennai vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai

Appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 1865/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143Section 147Section 44A

K V Tex Firm, Chennai vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai

Appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 1859/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Feb 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143Section 147Section 44A

Sandeep Arnuj Narang, Mumbai vs. ITO 27(3)(1), Mumbai, Navi Mumbai

ITA 6727/MUM/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Feb 2026AY 2024-25

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang, Hon’Ble & Shri Arun Khodpia, Hon’Blesandeep Arjun Narang, Ito 27(3)(1), 401, Runwal Grand, Mumbai Vs. 18Th Road, Chembur (East), Mumbai- 400 071. Pan : Adnpn1216D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms Tisha BaghFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary
Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)

Krishan Kumar, Gurgaon vs. Income Tax Officer, Gurgain

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1552/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2017-18]

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 54

Aromatrix Flora (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 1(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2100/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

Fdcm Karmachari Sahaka, Chandrapur vs. ITO Ward-2, Chandrapur

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 313/NAG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur03 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad

For Appellant: Shri Mohammed Lakkadsha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 80ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

Deputy Commisioner of Income Tax Circle 3(1)(1) Ahmedabad, Ahmebabad vs. Techno Industries, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 660/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyaltechno Industries, Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Plot No. 613, Phase Iv, Income-Tax, Gidc, Vatva, Circle 3(1)(1), Ahmedabad-382 245 Ahmedabad [Pan : Aacft 1503 D] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar Respondent By: Shri Abhijit, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing 27.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 03.02.2026 O R D E R Per Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-:- This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 22.01.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)” For Short), Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act” For Short), Relating To The Assessment Year 2017- 18. 2. The Revenue Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “(1) The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Deleting The Addition Of Rs 1,03,00,000/- Made By Ao On Account Of Unsecured Loan Received From Various Lenders U/S. 68 Of It Act, Despite The Fact That The Assessee Had Not Corroborative Evidences Identity Genuineness/Creditworthiness Of The Lenders During Assessment Establish The Proceedings. (2) The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Admitting The Additional Evidences During Appellate Proceedings, Without Giving The Opportunity To The Ao As Required By Rule 46A.. (3) The Ld. Cita) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.1,66,037/- Made By Ao On Account Of Disallowance Of Interest On Unsecured Loans Paid To Lenders, Despite The Fact That The Assessee Had Not Dcit Vs. Techno Industries Asst. Year : 2017-18 - 2–

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 68

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Ms. Jagson Colorchem Limited, Phase -II Gidc Estate Vatva

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1437/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Tr Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Years:2018-19

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 30Section 40

Sanjeev Yashwant Bartakke, Pune vs. DCIT Cir-5, Pune

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

ITA 3024/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.3024/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19 Sanjeev Yashwant Bartakke, Vs. Dcit, Circle-5, Flat No.803, Building C, Pune Treasure Park, Santnagar, Parvati, Parvatigaon, Pune 411009, Maharashtra Pan : Acdpb2796F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P BoraFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)

Jalpaiguri Zilla Regulated Market Committee, Jalpaiguri vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Jalpaiguri

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

ITA 2732/KOL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.2732/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Jalpaiguri Zilla Regulated Market Committee..…………………..………………....…………………....Appellant Jalpaiguri Sadar, Jalpaiguri, W.B 735101.. [Pan: Aacaj0159Q] Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1), Jalpaiguri...…….……....…..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Pradeep Agarwal, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Satyajit Mandal, Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 02, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 03, 2026 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 19.09.2025 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That In The Case Of The Assessee Information Was Received By The Assessing Officer That The Assessee Had Deposited Substantial Cash In Its Savings Bank Account Maintained With Indian Overseas Bank During The Assessment Year 2016–17. It Is An Admitted Fact That The Assessee Did Not File Any Return Of Income Under Section 139(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961. Accordingly, Proceedings Under Section 148A Of The Act Were Initiated. Show-Cause Notice Under Section 148A(B) Was Issued & Thereafter An Order Under Section

Section 10Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 148Section 148ASection 250

Sekar Govindaswamy, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1989/BANG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Feb 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2021-22 Shri. Sekar Govindaswamy, Addl/Jcit(A) - 1, No.306 Theja Sunshine Complex, Ludhiana. 16Th D Cross Pai Layout, K. R. Puram, Vs. Bangalore – 560 008, Karnataka. Pan No : Ayyps 5005 R Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Anto Joseph, Ca Respondent By : Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate, Standing Counsel For Revenue. Date Of Hearing : 10.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.02.2026

For Appellant: Shri. Anto Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate, Standing Counsel for Revenue
Section 115Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250

Rohan Atul Khadilkar, Pune vs. ITO, Ward 13(1), Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1200/PUN/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune02 Feb 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1200/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Kishor PhadkeFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 90

Chrysalis Play School Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3586/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3586/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2022-23 Chrysalis Play School Private Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 12, South Mada Street, Srinagar Income Tax, Colony, Saidapet, Chennai 600 015. Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai. [Pan: Aaicc2959D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Girish Kumar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Y. Sudarshan, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 27.01.2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 02.02.2026 : आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 31.12.2024 Passed By The Addl./Jcit(A), Faridabad For The Assessment Year 2022-23. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 273 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Affidavit, In 2

For Appellant: Shri Girish Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Y. Sudarshan, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 170A

Praphapananee Sekarbabu Vignesh, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-10(3), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2496/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. Suraj Nahar, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, J.C.I.T
Section 139(1)Section 154Section 90