Which cases are most cited on Section 139(4)?

Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT (384 ITR 490) — 631 citing judgments; CIT v. Nagpur Hotel Owners Association (247 ITR 201) — 112 citing judgments; ATION OF THE CITY OF AHMEDABAD AND OTHERS. 39. (1978) 3 SCC 544: MADHAV HAYAWADANRAO HOSKOT v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA. 40 (3 SCC 261) — 106 citing judgments; CIT v. Smt. Jasvinder Kaur (357 ITR 638) — 91 citing judgments; AA520 Veerappampalayam Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (138 Taxmann.com 571) — 78 citing judgments.

How many judgments are there on Section 139(4)?

BharatTax indexes 499 ITAT, High Court and Supreme Court judgments that turn on Section 139(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Section 139(4) of the Income Tax Act

Q: What is the leading case on Section 139(4) of the Income Tax Act?

Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT (384 ITR 490) is the decision most relied on for Section 139(4), cited in 631 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.

The decision most relied on for Section 139(4) is Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT (384 ITR 490), cited in 631 of the 499 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 139(4)

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. Nagpur Hotel Owners Association

247 ITR 201 · 2001 · Supreme Court

112

citing judgments

While there is no statutory time limit for filing Form 10 to claim exemption for income accumulation under Section 11(2), it must be furnished before the completion of assessment proceedings for the Assessing Officer to grant the exemption.

ATION OF THE CITY OF AHMEDABAD AND OTHERS. 39. (1978) 3 SCC 544: MADHAV HAYAWADANRAO HOSKOT v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA. 40

3 SCC 261 · 1997 · Reported

106

citing judgments

Tribunals, including the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, are subordinate to High Courts and cannot exercise the power of judicial review or strike down legislative provisions. High Courts retain ultimate authority to oversee and correct tribunal orders and are solely empowered to rule on the constitutional validity of laws.

CIT v. Smt. Jasvinder Kaur

357 ITR 638 · 2013 · Reported

citing judgments

The benefit of Section 10(38) for long-term capital gains is not available when transactions in penny stocks are found to be part of a scheme involving price manipulation or accommodation entries, indicating the gains are not genuine and lack actual investment.

AA520 Veerappampalayam Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

138 Taxmann.com 571 · 2022 · High Court

citing judgments

The Centralized Processing Centre (CPC) can deny deductions claimed under Chapter VI-A, such as Section 80P, during the processing of a return under Section 143(1) if conditions for claiming such deductions, including filing the return by the due date as per Section 80AC, are not met.

KLM Royal Dutch Airlines v. Additional Director of Income Tax

292 ITR 49 · 2007 · High Court

citing judgments

Reassessment proceedings under Section 147 cannot be initiated based on a mere change of opinion or reappraisal of existing facts, but require new or fresh tangible material or information indicating escapement of income.

Nileshwar Range Kallu Chethu Vyavasaya Thozhilali Sahakarana Sangham v. CIT

459 ITR 730 · 2023 · High Court

citing judgments

Timely filing of the income-tax return under section 139(1) is a mandatory condition for claiming deductions under Chapter VI-A, including section 80P, especially for Assessment Years 2018-19 onwards due to the amendment to section 80AC. Such deductions are not allowable if the return is filed belatedly or in response to a section 148 notice.

Raja Kishor Raghuramy Reddy v. ACIT

112 Taxmann.com 134 · 2019 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

Condonation of delay in filing an appeal is determined by the sufficiency of the cause shown, not merely the length of the delay, as the length of delay can never be the sole deciding factor.

CIT v. Rajesh Kumar Jalan

286 ITR 274 · 2006 · High Court

citing judgments

Section 139(4) of the Income-tax Act, which allows for filing a belated return, acts as a proviso to Section 139(1). Consequently, the time limit for depositing amounts or utilizing funds to claim exemptions, such as under Section 54, extends up to the due date for filing a return under Section 139(4).

CIT v. Ms. Jagriti Aggarwal

339 ITR 610 · 2011 · High Court

citing judgments

A return of income filed within the period allowed under Section 139(4) is valid for claiming exemptions and deductions, including those under Sections 54, 54F, and 80AC. However, depositing the unutilized capital gains in the Capital Gains Account Scheme is a statutory and mandatory requirement for claiming exemption under Section 54F.

Judgments on Section 139(4)

SMT. SHANTI DEVI GOYAL,DEHRADUN vs. CIT()-3, NOIDA, DEHRADUN

ITA 181/DDN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun08 Apr 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode] [Assessment Year : 2019-20] Acit Vs Smt. Shanti Devi Goyal 51/2, Rajpur Road, 14/1, New Road, Dehradun Dehradun, Uttarakhand Uttarakhand-248001 Pan-Adepg5850D Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2019-20] Smt. Shanti Devi Goyal Vs Cit(Appeals)-3 14/1, New Road, Dehradun, Noida, Uttar Pradesh Uttarakhand-248001 Pan-Adepg5850D Appellant Respondent Revenue By Ms. Poonam Sharma, Cit Dr Assessee By Shri Virendra Kalra, Ca Date Of Hearing 15.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 08.04.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Captioned Cross-Appeals Are Filed By The Revenue & Assessee Against The Order Dated 28.08.2024 By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A)-3, Noida [“Ld. Cit(A)”] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising From The Assessment Order Dated 15.07.2021 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2019-20. Ita No.180 & 181/Ddn/2024

Section 139(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 69

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAJPUR ROAD vs. SHANTI DEVI GOYAL, NEW ROAD

ITA 180/DDN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun08 Apr 2026AY 2019-20

Section 139(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 69

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, SHILLONG, SHILLONG vs. MEGHALAYA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED, LUMJINGSHAI, SHILLONG

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 308/GTY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati13 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Section 139(4)Section 139(9)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 72Section 80Section 80I

EKATAA COMMERCIAL CENTRE PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 3, MUMBAI

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

ITA 4902/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Suyog Bhave a/w. Shri Kshitij KasiFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi Sr. DR

Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 156Section 220Section 220(2)Section 234CSection 250

SUPERTECH EV LIMITED,JHAJJAR vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD, ROHTAK

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6603/DEL/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026AY 2024-25

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2024-25 Supertech Ev Limited Vs. Adit, Cpc, Bengaluru/ Ito Plot No.150 Sector 16 Exemptions Ward Rohtak Phase 1 Bahadurgarh Jhajjar Haryana-124507 Pan No.Abjcs1671E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 154Section 234B

SAWASTIKA PRINTING & PACKAGING,KALA MAB vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, NAHAN

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

ITA 1222/CHANDI/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Mar 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: the Hon'ble CIT(A)(NFAC) that assessee is having business turnover of Rs 16,77,30,943/-. While upholding the additions of Rs 20,81,000/- the Hon'ble CIT(A) (NFAC) has observed in last para of his order as under:-

For Appellant: Shri Yad Ram Saini, Advocate and Shri Neeraj Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR (Virtual Mode)

Section 132Section 139(4)Section 144Section 147

MERIDIAN MARKETERS,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 1879/HYD/2025[2022-23]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad06 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita.No.1879/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2022-2023 Meridian Marketers, The Acit, Hyderabad. Telangana. Central Circle-2(1), Vs. Pin 500 033. Hyderabad. Pan Abmfm1321M Telangana. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By -None- राज" व "ारा/Revenue By : Sri Mathivanan S A, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 03.03.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 06.03.2026 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao:

For Respondent: Sri Mathivanan S A, Sr. AR

Section 131Section 132ASection 139(4)Section 139(5)Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 69A

ADIMULAM SATYANARAYANA PROPRIETOR,VIZIANAGARAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, VIZIANAGARAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of my aforesaid observations

ITA 472/VIZ/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam04 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON'BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 115BSection 13Section 133(6)Section 139(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 69A

VEERAKERALAM PACB,COIMBATORE vs. ITO, NCW 4(1) , COIMBATORE

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

ITA 3291/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Mar 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3291/Chny/2025 "नधा#रण वष# /Assessment Year: 2019-20

For Respondent: 11.02.2026

Section 10ASection 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 80ASection 80P

SIVASUNDAR SELVAKUMARI,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-1(6), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3154/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. N. Balakrishnan, CIT

Section 139(4)Section 144BSection 147Section 194ISection 45

BIPINKUMAR MANILAL THAKOR,GANDHINAGAR, GUJARAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, GANDHINAGAR, UDYOG BHAVAN, GANDHINAGAR

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

ITA 1908/AHD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2013-14

For Appellant: Hardav Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Veerbadram Vislavath, Sr. D.R

Section 10(1)Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 276CSection 69A

CHARAK HELTH CARE & RURAL DEVELOPMENT SOCIETY,LUCKNOW vs. DCIT-CC-2, LUCKNOW

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

ITA 412/LKW/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow27 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Suyash Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Vachaspati Tripathi, CIT DR

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 234ASection 250

UMESHKUMAR PRATAPRAI AWTANI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(1)(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1976/AHD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Maulik Kansara, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Veerbadram Vislavath, Sr. D.R

Section 139(4)Section 147Section 148Section 69Section 69A

JOYDEEP MUKHERJEE,PRESENTLY RESIDING AT USA vs. DCIT, INTL TAXATION CIRCLE 1(2), BANGALORE, BMTC BUILDING, KORAMANGALA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2017/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2018-19 Joydeep Mukherjee, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner A 202, Prestige St. Johns Woods Of Income Tax Apt., 80, St. Johns Cross Road, International Taxation, Circle 1(2), Bengaluru South 560 029. Bangalore. Pan: Aawpm 7656E

For Appellant: Shri Pranav Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K. Saravanan, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 139Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 270ASection 276C

NAVIN VINODKUMAR AGARWAL,THANE vs. DCIT 14(1)(2), AAYAKAR ABHAVAN MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee

ITA 8445/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Respondent: Mr. Mahesh Saboo

Section 154

SRILAKSHMI DEVIREDDY,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(5), VIJAYAWADA

ITA 428/VIZ/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam19 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon'Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.428/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष/ Assessment Year:2017-18) Srilakshmi Devireddy Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(5) D.No. 9-58, Loyabata Road Nunna, Vijayawada – 521212 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Bjupd8440D] Vijayawada करदाता का प्रतिनिधित्व/ Assessee Represented By राजस्व का प्रतिनिधित्व/ Department Represented By Shri C. Subrahmanyam, Ca Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Sr.Dr सुनवाई समाप्त होने की तिथि/ Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing 16.02.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 19.02.2026 Per Ravish Sood, Jm: आदेश /Order The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 12.11.2024, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “A.O”) Under Section 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, "The Act"), Dated 03.12.2019 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. The Assessee Has Assailed The Impugned Order On The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 139(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 69A

DEVI ANUSUIYA VIDYA SANSTHAN,INDORE vs. CIT(A), NFAC, DELHI

ITA 472/IND/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

PARDEEP KUMAR WALIA,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE , DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 168/DDN/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun18 Feb 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode] [Assessment Year : 2023-24] Pradeep Kumar Walia Vs Dcit C/O-Matta Garg & Co. Central Circle 15, Astley Hall Dehradun Dehradun, Uttarakhand Uttarakhand-248001 Pan-Aabpw2423F Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri S.K.Matta, Ca Revenue By Ms. Poonam Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 10.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 18.02.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 31.07.2025 By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A)-3, Noida [“Ld.Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Cit(Appeals) Noida-3/10009/2022-23 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising From The Assessment Order Dated 07.02.2025 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2023-24. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income U/S 139(4) Of The Act On 04.11.2023, Declaring Total Income Of Inr 86,20,630/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass For The Reason That The Assessee Has Claimed Deduction U/S 54F Of The Act & Corresponding Capital Gain Was Not Declared In The Return Of Income Filed By The Assessee.

Section 115BSection 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 54FSection 69A

RNS POWER LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, WARD-5(1)(1), BENGALURU

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1421/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Prasanna Urala, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 115JSection 119Section 139Section 143Section 270ASection 80

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE, PUNE, PMT BUILDING, SWARGATE vs. SHIVAI VIDYA PRASARAK MANDAL, THANE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2536/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Tanmay Milind PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar

Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)(b)Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 234A

Showing 1–20 of 499 · Page 1 of 25

...