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)

Priti Pravin Kapadia, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 28(2)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 8460/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Rahul Chaudharyassessment Year : 2011-12 Priti Pravin Kapadia, Income Tax Officer, D/3/703, Moraj Residency, Ward-28(2)(4), Palm Beach Road, Vs. Tower No.6, Sector-16A, Vashi Railway Station, Sanpada East, Commercial Complex, New Mumbai–400705. Vashi, [Pan: Atbpk1174B] Navi Mumbai. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Kartik Kutmutia For Revenue : Shri Sunil Mathews, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 16-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 17-12-2025 Order Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [„Ld.Cit(A)‟], Dated 28-10-2025, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2011-12. 2. Briefly The Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Did Not File Any Return Of Income Originally U/S. 139(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 („The Act‟). Subsequently, Basis The Receipt Of Information That The Assessee Has Placed Time Deposit Of Rs. 19 Lakhs With Hdfc Bank, A Notice U/S. 148 Of 2 The Act Was Issued. In Response To The Said Notice, No Return Of Income Was Filed & Thereafter, After Issuance Of Notice U/S. 142(1) Of The Act & A Show Cause Notice Which Again Remain Non-Complied, The Assessment Was Completed U/S. 144 R.W.S. 147 Of The Act, Wherein The Ao Brought To Tax A Sum Of Rs. 19 Lakhs As Un-Explained Money U/S. 69B Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Kartik KutmutiaFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Mathews, Sr.DR
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 69B

Income Tax Officer/Ward-19(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Kruti Sandeep Shah, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

ITA 1968/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Rahul Chaudharyassessment Year : 2009-10 Income Tax Officer, Kruti Sandeep Shah, Ward-19(2)(2), 117, Navyug Nagar Forjet Hill 503, 5Th Floor, Vs. Road, Piramal Chambers, Mumbai-400007. Parel, [Pan: Aapps4121F] Mumbai-400012. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Sandeep Shah For Revenue : Shri Kiran K. Chhatrapati, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 16-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 17-12-2025 Order Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [„Ld.Cit(A)‟], Dated 23-01-2025, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2009-10. 2. Briefly The Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Her Return Of Income U/S. 139(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 („The Act‟) On 26-09-2009, Declaring Total Income Of Rs. 4,04,880/-. The Return Was Processed U/S. 143(1) Of The Act. Subsequently, The Ao Was In Receipt Of Information From The Investigation Wing That The Assessee Has Obtained Accommodation

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep ShahFor Respondent: Shri Kiran K. Chhatrapati, Sr.DR
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 144Section 145(3)Section 148

Pristine Mega Logistics Park Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT Circle- 19(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1450/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma& Shri Amitabh Shukla[Assessment Year: 2022-23] M/S Pristine Mega Logistics Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Park Pvt. Ltd., Cpc Bangalore, 3Rd Floor, Commercial Plaza, Vs Circle-19(1), New Delhi Wing B, Radisson Hotel, Mahipalpur, New Delhi-110037 Pan:Aagcp8465R Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Ashok Jain, Ca Revenue By Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 10.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17.12.2025

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 80Section 80I

Shri Vardhaman Nagri Sahakari Patsanstha Ltd., Pachora vs. ITO Ward 1(4), Jalgaon

ITA 2452/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2452/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shri Vardhaman Nagari V The Income Tax Officer, Sahakari Patsanstha Ltd., S Ward-1(4), Jalgaon. 1061, Shivaji Chowk, Bhadgaon Road, Pachora, Maharashtra – 424201. Pan: Aacas3361F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Vinay Kawdia – (Through Virtual) Revenue By Shri Sandeep Sathe – Dr Date Of Hearing 08/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16/12/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2016-17 Dated 22.10.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 147 R.W.S 144B Of The Act, Dated 14.03.2024. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1) On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Assessment Made In Respect Of An Issue That Was Not Disclosed In Notice Issued U/S 148A(B) Is Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed.

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 250Section 80P

Shri Vardhaman Nagri Sahakari Patsanstha Ltd., Pachora vs. ITO Ward 1(4), Jalgaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2451/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2451/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Vardhaman Nagri V The Income Tax Sahakari Patsanstha Ltd., S Officer, 1061, Shivaji Chowk, Ward-1(4), Pune. Bhadgaon Road, Pachora, Maharashtra – 424201. Pan: Aacas3361F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Vinay Kawdia – (Virtual Hearing) Revenue By Shri Sandeep Sathe - Dr Date Of Hearing 08/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/12/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2015-16 Dated 22.10.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 147 R.W.S 144B Of The Act, Dated 18.03.2024. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151ASection 250Section 80P

Sumangal Jewels P. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., CC-4(3), Kolkata

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2357/KOL/2024[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Dec 2025AY 2009-2010
Section 132Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

Apar Corporation Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC6(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 5232/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Shri Prabhash Shankarapar Corporation Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit Cc 6(1), Mumbai Apar House, Corporate Park, 19Th Floor, Building No.5, Air India Building, Sion Trombay Road, Mumbai - 400021 Chembur, Mumbai – 400071. Pan/Gir No. Aabca1405B (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 10Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 37(1)

Sureshkumar Ramanlal Sanghvi, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer (Ward 19(3)(1)), Mumbai

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

ITA 3456/MUM/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadishassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 271A

Shree Nathkrupa Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Kolhapur vs. ITO (Exemption), Kolhapur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1901/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1901/Pun/2025 धििेंारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2020-21 Shree Nathkrupa Shikshan Ito (Exemption), Kolhapur Prasarak Mandal, At & Post Waghale Tal. Vs. Panhala-416230 Kolhapur Maharashtra Pan-Aajts3418D अपीलेंर्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By: Shri Mayuresh Doshi (Virtual) Department By: Shri Ganesh B. Budruk-Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing: 15-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 19-12-2025 आदीश /Order

For Appellant: Shri Mayuresh Doshi (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Ganesh B. Budruk-Addl. CIT
Section 1Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ba)Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 4

Faruk Rafik Mujawar, Ichalkaranji vs. Income Tax Officer, Ichalkaranji

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

ITA 1344/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Uodol Raj Singh
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 194HSection 270ASection 270A(9)Section 274Section 44A

DCIT, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata vs. Balajee Mini Steels & Rerolling Private Limited, Patna

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1725/KOL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Manish Rastogi, ARFor Respondent: S/Shri Praveen Kishore &
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 147

DCIT, Central Circle- 4(3), Kolkata vs. Balajee Mini Steels & Rerolling Private Limited, Patna

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1691/KOL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Manish Rastogi, ARFor Respondent: S/Shri Praveen Kishore &
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 147

DCIT, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata vs. Balajee Mini Steels & Rerolling Private Limited, Patna

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1690/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Manish Rastogi, ARFor Respondent: S/Shri Praveen Kishore &
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 147

DCIT, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata vs. Balajee Mini Steels & Rerolling Private Limited, Patna

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1689/KOL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 147

DCIT, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata vs. Balajee Mini Steels & Rerolling Private Limited, Patna

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1688/KOL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Manish Rastogi, ARFor Respondent: S/Shri Praveen Kishore &
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 147

Apmc Tarikere, Tarikere vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Chickmagalur

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

ITA 1442/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Sri C.R. Vasanth Kumar, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Balusamy N., D.R
Section 10Section 10(1)Section 11Section 11(2)Section 11(7)Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250

Rajendra Kumar Shrivastava, Durg vs. ITO, NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 744/RPR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur12 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.744/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2020-21 Rajendra Kumar Shrivastava, Mig-42, Padmanabhpur, Durg (C.G.)-491 001 Pan: Alops3921M

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 154Section 154(2)(B)Section 154(8)Section 155Section 186Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

Swamini Mahila Gramin Bigarsheti Sahkari Patsanstha Maryadit, Pune vs. ITO Ward 12(3), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2533/PUN/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Dec 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2533/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Swamini Mahila Gramin V The Income Tax Officer, Bigarsheti Sahakari Patsanstha S. Ward-12(3), Pune. Maryadit, Survey No.272, Sainagar Gourav Bunglow, Lohagaon, Near Uttareshwar Mandir, Pune – 411047. Pan: Aakas1168G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Rajendra Agiwal Revenue By Smt Indira R. Adakil-Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 02/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12/12/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2015-16, Dated 19.08.2025 Emanating From Assessment Order 147 R.W.S 144B Of The

Section 133(6)Section 148Section 149Section 151ASection 250Section 282Section 69A

ITO (International Taxation)-1, Hyderabad vs. Kesava Kumar Kunapureddy, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 937/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 139(1)Section 54ESection 54F

Chandini Duvvuri, Hyderabad vs. ITO (Int Taxn)-1, Hyderabad

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

ITA 1432/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151A