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)

Satish Kumar Jain, Prop. M/S Jain Industries vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Jammu

The appeal stand allowed

ITA 563/ASR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Udayan Das Gupta, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No. 563/Asr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Shri Satish Kumar Jain Ito बनाम/ Vs. H No 579 Airport Road Panama Chowk Rani Bagh, Jammu-180003 Jammu-180004. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Ablpj-6598-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/Appellant By : Shri K.R. Jain (Advocate) – Ld.Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondentby : Sh. Charan Dass (Addl. Cit)– Ld. Sr Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17-07-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 07-08-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15 Arises Out Of An Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 30-08- 2024 Confirming Penalty Levied By Ld. Assessing Officer (Ao) U/S 221(1) Vide Order Dated 29-06-2017. Having Heard Rival Submissions & Upon Perusal Of Case Records, The Appeal Is Disposed-Off As Under. 2. The Assessee Was Assessed U/S 143(3) On 19-12-2016. The Assessee Declared Income Of Rs.9.75 Lacs. The Assessee Claimed

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Jain (Advocate) – Ld.ARFor Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (Addl. CIT)– Ld. Sr DR
Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 221(1)Section 80I

Deputy Commssioner of Income Tax (Central Circle) -3(3), Mumbai vs. Excel Entertainment Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6469/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.6469/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2020-21) Deputy Commissioner V/S. Excel Entertainment Pvt Of Income Tax बनाम Ltd. (Central Circle)-3(3) 404, Kautilya Bhawan, Bkc, Mumbai 400051 Shubham 701, Orchid Pride, Convent Avenue Road, Santacruz (W), Mumbai 40054 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaace5273A Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee By: Shri Nitesh Joshi A/W Shri Anurag Tulsian & Shri Vipul Mody राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing 08.07.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 06.08.2025 आदेश / Order Per Renu Jauhri [A.M.] :- This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Appeal) 51, Mumbai [Cit(A)] Dated 15.10.2024 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “Act”] For Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds In This Appeal. "1. "On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld Citia) Is Not Justified In Holding That Assessee Is Eligible To Claim Concessional Rate Of Tax U/S.115Baa Of The Page 2

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi a/w Shri Anurag Tulsian & Shri Vipul ModyFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, SR DR
Section 115Section 115BSection 139Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 250