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)

Vikram Babulal Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO, Assessment Unit It Department, Mumbai

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

ITA 917/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhanvikram Babulal Shah Vs. Ito Assessment Unit It 3Rd Floor, R. No. 73, Shreenathji Department Bldg, Gulalwadi 142, Kika Street, Piramal Chambers Mumbai- Maharashtra-400 004 400 012 Pan: Cdops4473E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 44ASection 68Section 69A

Amrita Prabhakar Deodhar, Andheri vs. Income Tax Assistant Commissioner, Mumbai

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

ITA 5892/MUM/2025[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Vikram Singh Yadavshri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh PurohitFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan (SR DR)
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 194JSection 250Section 40

Rohit Chambers Premises Coop Society Limited, Mumbai vs. Assessing Officer, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 5812/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Rohit Chambers Premises Assessing Officer, Coop Society Limited, Ward 26(1)(1), Janmabhoomi Marg, Kautilya Bhavan, G Block Vs. Horniman Circle, Fort, Mumbai Bkc, Bandra Kurla – 400001. Complex, Bandra (E), Pan – Aaaar44550K. Mumbai 400051. (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Satish Mody, Ld. Ca Revenue By : Shri Praveen K. Srivastava, Ld. Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 20.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.11.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 16.03.2021, Impugned Herein, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)/Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2018-19. 2. In This Case, The Assessee By Filing Its Return Of Income On Dated 19.09.2018 Had Declared Gross Total Income Of Rs.26,69,680/- Under The Head Income From The Other Sources & Claimed The Same As Exempt Under Section 80P(2)(D) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Satish Mody, Ld. CAFor Respondent: Shri Praveen K. Srivastava, Ld. Sr. D.R
Section 119Section 139Section 2(19)Section 250Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(1)Section 80P(2)(d)

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Noida vs. M/S. Ace Infracity Developers Pvrivate Ltd, Noida

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4104/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year 2022-23] Dcit Vs M/S. Ace Infracity Developers Pvt. Central Circle-1, Ltd., Plot No. Ib, Gautam Budh A.R.T.O Complex, Nagar-201301 Sector-33, Noida-201301. Pan-Aakca8693E Appellant Respondent

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 37Section 37(1)Section 68Section 69A

Ravi Kant Luthra, Amritsar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(1), Amritsar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 444/ASR/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar27 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. No. 444/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Ravi Kant Luthra, 1-Patel Vs. Adit, Cpc, Chowk Guru Bazar, Amritsar. Bengaluru. [Pan:-Alnpk7173Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) Sh. Himanshu Gupta, Ca Appellant By Respondent By Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. Dr

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 250(6)

Lalit Kumar Mohanlal Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 20(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6129/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Ms. Ridhisha Jain (virtually appeared)For Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan (SR DR)
Section 10(38)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 272A(1)(d)

Lalita Bharatkumar Jain, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 20(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6078/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Ms. Ridhisha Jain (virtually appeared)For Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan (SR DR)
Section 10(38)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 272A(1)(d)

Lalita Bharatkumar Jain, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 20(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6077/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Ms. Ridhisha Jain (virtually appeared)For Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan (SR DR)
Section 10(38)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 272A(1)(d)

St Patricks Educational Society, Gumla vs. Income Tax Officer W3(1), Ranchi

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 70/RAN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi26 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George Mathan(Through Hybrid Mode) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.70/Ran/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2018-2019) St Patricks Educational Vs. Ito, Ward-3(1), Ranchi Society, Sisai Road, Gumla, Jharkhand-835207 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aakas 7872 B (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Naveen Dokania, CAFor Respondent: Shri Khubchand T Pandya, Sr
Section 10Section 12ASection 139Section 139(1)Section 148

Mahamedsuhel Abdulkadir Kaduji, Bharuch vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Bharuch

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 566/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.566/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Mahamedsuhel Abdulkadir Kaduji, Vs. Ito, Mota Chakla Kavi, Jambusar, Ward – 1(1), Bharuch – 392170, Gujarat Bharuch "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Amipk5119Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Mukund Rao, Ar Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 04/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/11/2025

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

Srinivas Chowdary Vallabaneni, Secunderab vs. DCIT., Central Circle -1(4), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1462/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1462/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20) Shri Srinivas Chowdary Vs. Dy.Cit Vallabaneni, Secunderabad Central Circle 1(4) Pan:Aeipv3757R Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Phaneendra Nag, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Ranjan Agrawala, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 17/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 26/11/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

For Appellant: Shri Phaneendra Nag, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Ranjan Agrawala, Sr.DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 271ASection 69B

Ponnapula Sulochana, L/R of Late Ponnapula Sanjeeva Parthasarathy, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle -3(2), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of assessee for A

ITA 295/HYD/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153A(1)(a)Section 153DSection 80

Ponapula Sulochana Lr Late P Sanjeeva Parthasarathy, Hyderabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Tax, Central Circle-3(2), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of assessee for A

ITA 294/HYD/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153A(1)(a)Section 153DSection 80

Shree Dandeshwar Shankar Mandir Trust, Mumbai vs. ITO (Exem)-1, Mumbai

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

ITA 6321/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailshree Dandeshwar Shankar Mandir Trust, 72, Khar Danda Koliwada, Khar West, Mumbai – 400052 ............... Appellant Pan: Aajts6534L V/S Central Processing Centre, Income Tax Department, ……………… Respondent Bangalore.

For Appellant: Ms. Neelam JadhavFor Respondent: Ms. Neena Jeph, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250

Mukut Behari Lal Bhargava, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle(2)1, Gurgaon

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

ITA 2012/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalmukut Behari Lal Bhargava, Acit, Lcg 05, 04B Laburnum Complex, Circle-2(1), 1 4Th Floor, Sushant Lok 1, Vs. Gurgaon. Block-A, Sector-28 Haryana-122009. Pan-Adipb9356P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Shri Pradumna Kumar Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 03.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26.11.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A) In Short] In Appeal No. Cit(A), Gurugaon-1/10738/2018-19 Dated 05.02.2025 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act, In Short) For Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring Total Income Of Rs.1,20,41,040/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny & During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Assessing Officer Has Issued Various Notices Which Were Replied By The Assessee. Mukut Behari Lal Bhargava Vs. Acit 3. Thereafter, The Assessment Order Was Passed At A Total Income Of Rs.1,79,36,182/- By Making Disallowance On Account Of Expenses Claimed On Costs Of Improvement Of Capital Asset, Disallowance Of Carry Forward Of Short Term Capital Gains & Long Term Capital Loss & Also Denied The Deduction Claimed U/S 80G Of The Act.

Section 250Section 271Section 80G

Swaminath Baburao Patil, Solapur vs. ITO Ward 2(3) Solapur, Solapur

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 832/PUN/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Nov 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.832/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Swaminath Baburao Patil, V The Income Tax Officer, C37, Siddheshwar Market S Ward-2(3), Solapur. Yard, Hyderabad Road, Solapur – 431005. Maharashtra. Pan: Akwpp4321P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Girish Ladda Revenue By Shri Ambarnath Khule (Through Virtual Hearing) – Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 24/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 25/11/2025 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.2014-15 Dated 27.01.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 147 R.W.S 144B Of The Act, Dated 19.05.2023. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 153CSection 249(4)(a)Section 250Section 292B

Satgramr. Colliery Employees Cooperative Credit Society Limited, Asansol vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Asansol

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1920/KOL/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Nov 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.1920/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Satgram R Collery Employees Cooperative Credit Society Ltd……....Appellant Satgram Project, P.O Debichand Nagar, Block-Jamuria-1, Asansol, W.B. 713332. [Pan: Aajas8427K] Vs. Acit, Circle-1, Asansol……..……………....…..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Abhijit Banerjee, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S. B. Chakraborty, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 24, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 25, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 03.02.2025 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”). 2. At The Time Of Hearing Of The Matter, The Learned Representative Submitted That There Was A Delay Of 115 Days In Filing The Appeal. In This Connection, The Assessee Filed An Affidavit Explaining The Reasons For The Delay. After Considering The Submissions Of The Assessee & Examining The Contents Of The Affidavit, We Are Satisfied That The Reasons For The Delay Are Bona Fide & Deserve To Be Condoned.

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 80P

Mohit Gupta, Chennai vs. ITO, Non- Corp Ward 17(2), Chennai

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

ITA 1847/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1847/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shri Mohit Gupta, The Income Tax Officer, T45, Old No.T11, Vs. Non-Corporate Ward 17(2), Vi Avenue, Chennai. Besant Nagar, Chennai – 600 090. Pan: Aoqpg 5419R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20.11.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 2(47)(iva)Section 250Section 45Section 48Section 53ASection 54Section 54(2)

ACIT, Chennai vs. Chettinad Academy of Research and Education, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1444/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.TFor Respondent: Shri. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate
Section 11Section 11(2)(a)Section 12ASection 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

St. Francis Xavier Church, Panvel vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemption), Thane

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

ITA 5883/MUM/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavassessment Year : 2024-25 St. Francis Xavier Church Trust, Income Tax Officer, Plot 379/B, Behind Orion Mall Exemption Ward, Thane & S.T. Depot, Vs. Quershi Mansion, Panvel-410206. Gokhale Road, Pan : Aaets4913N Naupada, Thane-400602. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : None For Revenue : Smt. B. Brahma Vidya Date Of Hearing : 25-11-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 25-11-2025 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Addl/Jcit(A)-Agra, Dated 29-07-2025, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2024-25, Wherein The Assessee Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1.1. On The Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)] Erred In Confirming The Denial Of Exemption/Deductions Under Section 11 Of The Act Resorted To By The Centralized Processing Centre [Cpc), Income Tax Department, Bengaluru (The Learned Assessing Officer) While Processing The Return Of Income Under Section 143(1) Of The Act On The Grounds That The Audit Report In Form 10-Bb Was Filed Belatedly, Though With The Return Of Income Which Was Filed Within The Extended Time Limit Under Section 139(1) Of The Act.

For Appellant: NONEFor Respondent: Smt. B. Brahma Vidya
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 11(6)Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)