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)

Devadas Anup, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1933/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Guruswamy H, ITPFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate – Standing
Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 250

Gia India Laboratory Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assessment Unit/the Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-14(1)(2)-Mumbai, Mumbai

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

ITA 6801/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

For Appellant: 1:1 The Assessing Officer has erred in not properly considering and giving effec
Section 143(3)Section 234DSection 244ASection 92C

Ashok Sethi, Delhi vs. ACIT Circle- 70(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 5526/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2018-19 Sh. Ashok Sethi, Vs. Acit, 18, Sunder Nagar, Circle-70(1), Delhi New Delhi Pan: Bqqps1160L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Shailendra Mohan, Adv. Department By Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 02.02.2026 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2018-19, Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Addl. Jcit(A)- 2, Chennai’S Din & Order No. Itba/Apl/S/250/2025- 26/1078504613(1), Dated 15.07.2025, Involving Proceedings Under Section 154 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’). Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. Suffice To Say, It Transpires During The Course Of Hearing That Both The Learned Lower Authorities Have Denied The Assessee’S Foreign Tax Credit Claim Of Rs.1,28,946/- Under Section 90 R.W.S. 90A Of The Act For The Sole Reason That He Had Not Filed/Uploaded His Corresponding Form 67 On Or Before The Prescribed “Due” Date In The Course Of Section 154 “Rectification”, Dated 18Th August, 2022 & Upheld In The Lower Appellate Discussion. This Is What Leaves The Assessee Aggrieved. 4. We Have Given Our Thoughtful Consideration To The Assessee’S & Department’S Vehement Arguments Reiterating Their Respective Stands. It Further Emerges That The Assessee Had Subsequently Complied With The Above Form 67 Filing/Uploading Post Facto The Due Date Thereof As Admitted By Both The Parties. & Also, That Instant Identical Issue Has Been Decided By This Tribunal In Gurcharan Singh Vs. Ito

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 154Section 90

Suresh Ratilal Lodaria, Anjar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward - 2, Gandhidham.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 389/RJT/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 148Section 271BSection 44A

Sanjeev Kumar Saxena, Lucknow vs. ITO-3(4), Lucknow -New, Lucknow

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 99/LKW/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(vii)

Malika, Hardoi vs. ITO-3(2), Hardoi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 389/LKW/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Jan 2026AY 2019-2020

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Pranav Pandey, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Add CIT DR
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 272A(1)(d)Section 56(2)(X)Section 69

M/S Model Tanners (India) Pvt. Ltd., Kanpur vs. Astt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kanpur

In the result, ITA No. 374/LKW/2017 is partly allowed while ITA No

ITA 375/LKW/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Jan 2026AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Sh. Ashish Jaiswal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Puneet Kumar, CIT DR
Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 801BSection 80I

M/S Model Tanners (India) Pvt. Ltd., Kanpur vs. Astt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kanpur

In the result, ITA No. 374/LKW/2017 is partly allowed while ITA No

ITA 374/LKW/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Jan 2026AY 2005-06
For Appellant: Sh. Ashish Jaiswal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Puneet Kumar, CIT DR
Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 801BSection 80I

Income-Tax Officer Ward-3(3)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Furnish Home, Ahmedabad

The appeal of the asessee is allowed, whereas, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1671/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A), wherein detailed submissions supported by the books of accounts, statutory returns, confirmation and other documentary evidences were filed. A remand report of the AO was sought on the same by the Ld. CIT(A) after considering which, Ld. CIT(A) deleted

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumbhare, Sr. DR
Section 250Section 68Section 69

Furnish Home, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(3)(1) Old Ward-3(3)(2), Ahmedabad

The appeal of the asessee is allowed, whereas, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1439/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member), SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumbhare, Sr. DR
Section 250Section 68Section 69

Ravikiran Gopalrao Alavandi, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Pune

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

ITA 2939/PUN/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2939/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2021-22

For Respondent: Assessee by Shri Anup Shaha
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 90

Mahaveer Nagari Sahakari Patpedhi Limited, Amalner vs. ITO Ward 1(4) Jalgaon, Jalgaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2228/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

Mahaveer Nagari Sahakari Patpedhi Limited, Amalner vs. ITO Ward 1(4) Jalgaon, Jalgaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2227/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jan 2026AY 2015-16
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

Sanjay Vasantrao Patil, Satana vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - Malegaon

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

ITA 1894/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI R.K. PANDA (Vice President), MS. ASTHA CHANDRA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Pawar
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

Syed Omer, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-8(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1404/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jan 2026AY 2018-19
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

Crystal Ice and Cold Stor Age, Mangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Mangaluru

In the result, Appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2309/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice –Assessment Year :2016-17 M/S. Crystal Ice & Cold Storage, Plot No. 395-A1 Industrial Area, The Income Tax Officer, Baikampady New, Mangalore, Ward-1(1), Vs. Mangaluru, Karnataka – 575011. Mangaluru. Pan: Aaefc9692E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, Advocate
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 194I

Elegant Marbles and Grani Industries Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle 6(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee being ITA No

ITA 7415/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarelegant Marbles & Grani Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Industries Limited Tax, Circle 6(2)(2), Mumbai Room No. 506, 5Th Floor Aayakar Raghuvanshi Mill Compound, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Bhawan, M.K. Road, Mumbai Parel, Mumbai-400013 400020 Pan: Aaace1584C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Shreyash Shah, Respondent By : Shri Ritesh Misra (Cit Dr) Date Of Hearing : 27/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/01/2026 O R D E R Per: Anikesh Banerjee (Jm): The Instant Appeal Of The Assessee Filed Against The Order Of The Nfac, Delhi [For Brevity ‘The Ld. Cit(A)], Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (For Brevity ‘The Act’) For Assessment Year 2017-18, Date Of Order 06.11.2025. The Impugned Order Emanated From The Order Of The Ld. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle.-6(2)(2), Mumbai (For Brevity The “Ld. Ao”), Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Act, Date Of Order 12.12.2019. 2

For Appellant: Shri Shreyash ShahFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra (CIT DR)
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 250

DCIT Central Circle-5(4), Mumbai vs. Awas Developeres & Construction Private Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 6282/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: The Itat.

Section 11(5)(iii)Section 14ASection 43B

Business India Publications Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 5734/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarbusiness India Publications Vs Income Tax Officer Limited. Income Tax Office-3(1)(2) Room 21 Framroz Court, 4Th Floor, No.666 Aayakarbhavan, M.K. Road, Marine Drive, Next To Sea Mumbai-400020 Green Hotel, Maharashtra- 400020 Pan:Aaacb4739Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ravikant S. Pathak, Respondent By : Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui (Sr.Ar)

For Appellant: Shri Ravikant S. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui (Sr.AR)
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250

Hansraj, Rewari vs. ITO Ward 1(4), Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4978/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh, Ita No:- 4978/Del/2025 (Assessment Year- 2014-15) Hansraj, Income Tax Officer, C-75, Ground Floor, Ward-1(4), M2K County, Dharuhera Vs Gurugram, Rewari, Haryana-123106. Haryana-122001. Pan- Aazph7436E Assessee Revenue

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148