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)

Riddhi Siddhi Mahila Nagari Co-Op Credit Society Ltd, Karad vs. CIT (Appeals), Delhi

ITA 2216/PUN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2216/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Riddhi Siddhi Mahila Nagari Vs. Assessment Unit, Co-Op. Credit Society Ltd., Income Tax Department. Palkar House, 157, Guruwar Peth, Shri Vitthal Chouk, Karad- 415110. Pan : Aacar0958D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Vijaykumar N. Kashirsagar Revenue By : Shri Vinod Pawar (Virtual) Date Of Hearing : 28.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.11.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.08.2025 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Primary Credit Co-Operative Society Engaged In The Business Of Providing Credit Facilities To Its Members & Also In Accepting Deposits From Them. On The Basis Of Information That The Assessee Has Made One Time Deposit Of Rs.5,95,522/- & Tds Of More Than Rs.7,72,686/-

For Appellant: Shri Vijaykumar N. KashirsagarFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Pawar (Virtual)
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 194ASection 80ASection 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(2)(d)

Kranthi Educational Society, Bhadrachallam vs. DCIT., Exemption Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our observations given hereinabove

ITA 820/HYD/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Nov 2025AY 2022-2023

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A).

Section 11Section 11oSection 12ASection 12A(1)(b)Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

Subbalakshmamma Pinnama, Thummalagunta, Tirupati vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Tirupati

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

ITA 1463/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A).

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 270ASection 274Section 45

Shree Ramchandra Ingot India Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., CC-4(3), Kolkata

In the result, all six appeals of the assessee are allowed and all six

ITA 1366/KOL/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Nov 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: S/Shri & Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubey

For Appellant: Shri Manish Rastogi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

ITO WD 2(1) Kol, Kolkata vs. Unicorn Plaza (P) Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and cross-objection of the assessee is also dismissed

ITA 2213/KOL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2011-12 Ito, Ward-2(1), Kolkata…………...….……………….……….……….……Appellant Vs. Unicorn Plaza (P) Ltd….………………………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Commerce House, 2A, Ganesh Chandra Avenue Room No.4, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700013. [Pan: Aaacu8963B] C.O. 53/Kol/2024 (In Ita No.2213/Kol/2024) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Unicorn Plaza (P) Ltd.….………………. ….……….…….……….……Cross-Objector Commerce House, 2A, Ganesh Chandra Avenue Room No.4, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700013. [Pan: Aaacu8963B] Vs. Ito, Ward-2(1), Kolkata ……………………………..…...…..…………….Respondent Appearances By: Shri S. Jhajharia, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri P. N. Barnwal, Cit- Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 03, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 19, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey:

Section 132Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 153ASection 250Section 68Section 69C

Marelli (India) Private Limited, Gurugram vs. Deputy Commissionar of Income-Tax, Circle 16(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 1136/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Sh. Sudhir Kumar & Sh.Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2020-21 Marelli (India) Private Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner Of 5Th Floor, Tower 8, Candor Income Tax, Circle 16(1) Teachspace,One Reality Project Cr Building, Delhi It/Ites Sez Village Tikri Sector 48 Gurugram Haryana-122018 Pan No. Aagcm2620K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 234BSection 250

Satbir Sagwal, Karnal vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4, Karnal

ITA 1617/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Sudhir Kumar & Sh. Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2011-12 Satbir, Sagwal C/O Tej Mohan Vs Income Tax, Officer Singh H.No.527, Sector 10D Ward-4 Karnal Haryana Chandigarh 160011 Pan No. Bdops3759N (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 69

Income Tax Officer, Raipur vs. Sanjay Kumar Punjabi, Raipur

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

ITA 565/RPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.565/Rpr/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2019-20 Income Tax Officer, Central Revenue Building, Civil Lines, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, 492001 .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

For Appellant: Mr. Sanjay Kumar PunjabiFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr.DR
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69ASection 80G

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 3(2), Kolkata vs. Sincere Commodities and Derivatives Market Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, both the captioned appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1256/KOL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

Deputy Commissioner of Income Taxcentral Circle 3(2), Kolkata, Kolakta vs. Sincere Commodities and Derivatives Market Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, both the captioned appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1255/KOL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

Nagahat Tea Estate Private Limited, Kolkata vs. Income Tax Officer Ward -1, Jorhat

ITA 20/GTY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati17 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 119(1)Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 139(9)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 80

Nagahat Tea Estate Private Limited, Kolkata vs. Income Tax Officer Ward -1, Jorhat

ITA 19/GTY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati17 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 119(1)Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 139(9)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 80

Nagahat Tea Estate Private Limited, Kolkata vs. Income Tax Officer Ward -1, Jorhat

ITA 18/GTY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati17 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 119(1)Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 139(9)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 80

Shree Chalala VI Ka Seva Sahakari Mandali Ltd., Amreli vs. The ITO Ward 3(1)(4), Rajkot-Amreli., Rajkot

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 358/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot17 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, A Ccountant Member & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 358/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2019-20) Shree Chalala Vi Ka Seva Sahakari Vs. The Ito Ward 3(1)(4), Mandali Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, Race Course Ring Chalala Haveli Road, Road, Dhari Amreli - 365630 Rajkot - 360001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aatas2273D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Ms. Devina Patel, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 27/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 17/11/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per, Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm; Captioned Appeal Filed By Assessee Pertaining To Assessment Year 2019-20, Is Directed Against Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi/Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Dated 31/03/2025, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 143(1) Of The Act. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: - 1. The Learned Addl/Jcit (A)-1, Kolkata Erred In Confirming Action Of Cpc, Bangalore In Disallowing Claim Of Deduction Of Rs. 3,51,828/- U/S Sop Of The Act By Failing To Appreciate That Provisions Of Sec. 143(1)(A)(V) Do Not Provide For Denial Of Deduction U/S 80P Of The Act When The Return Of Income Is Not Filed Within Time Allowed U/S 139(1) Of The Act But U/S 139(4). 2. The Learned Addl/Jcit (A)-1, Kolkata Erred In Upholding Action Of The Cpc, Bangalore In Making Adjustment To The Returned Income Of The Appellant By Way Of Shree Chalala Vikas Seva Sahkari Mandli Ltd.

For Appellant: Ms. Devina Patel, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav Ld. SR. DR
Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

Pavitar Singh, Jagadhri, Yamunanagar vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandigarh

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 653/CHANDI/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh17 Nov 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumarआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 653/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Pavitar Singh, Ito, बना 188, Vuillage Satgoli, Nwr-W-(65)(95) Bhagu Majra, Chandigarh म Jadadhri, Yamunanagar Vs. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Bteps4094J अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Rachit Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Vinod Kumar Chaudhary, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

Income Tax Officer-2(1), Bilaspur vs. Baldev Prasad Patel, Mungli

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

ITA 646/RPR/2025[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Raipur14 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.646/Rpr/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Sharma & Shri VivekFor Respondent: Ms. Manisha Kinnu, CIT-DR
Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144ASection 147Section 148Section 69A

Kulathumkuzhiyil Muhammed Ashraf, Kottayam vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1 Kottayam, Kottayam

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

ITA 622/COCH/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Years: 2018-19 Kulathumkuzhiyil Muhammed Ashraf .......... Appellant Kulathumkuzhiyil, Velloor, Kottayam 686501 [Pan: Bzvpa6849J] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Wd-2, Kottayam .......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Prashanth Srinivas, Ca Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 28.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.11.2025 O R D E R This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 23.06.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is An Individual. No Regular Return Of Income Under The Provisions Of Section 139(1) Of The Act Was Filed For Ay 2018-19. Based On The Information That The Appellant Received Interest Income From United India Insurance Company Ltd. Or Rs. 29,03,429/- During The Previous Year Relevant To Assessment Year Under Consideration, The Ao Formed An Opinion That Income Escaped Assessment To Tax. Accordingly, A Notice U/S. 148 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Was Issued On 2 Kulathumkuzhiyil Muhammed Ashraf 31.03.2022. The Appellant Neither Complied With The Notice U/S. 148 Nor U/S. 142(1) Of The Act Issued By The Ao Calling For Certain Information. In The Circumstances, The Ao Was Constrained To Pass Best Judgement Assessment By Bringing To Tax The Interest Income Of Rs. 29,03,429/- As Unexplained Money Of The Appellant.

For Appellant: Shri Prashanth Srinivas, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 148Section 250(6)

Chadralop Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Aurangabad vs. Exemption Ward, Aurangabad, Maharashtra

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for

ITA 778/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vijay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S Pathak, ARFor Respondent: Shri Uodol Raj Singh, DR
Section 139(1)Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune vs. Praj Industries Limited, Pune

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

ITA 2096/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2096/Pun/2025 Assessment Year 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Amit BobdeFor Respondent: Shri Paresh Shaparia
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35

Pune Cantonment Board Kamgar Co-Operative Credit Society, Pune vs. ITO Ward 7(1), Pune

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

ITA 2481/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2481/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Pramod Shahakar
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 80ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)