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 902 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.

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.263

Section 139(4) 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(4) is Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT (384 ITR 490), cited in 631 of the 902 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

The constitutional validity of an enactment can be supported by arguments that it would pass legal tests.

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

The Supreme Court considered the delay in filing an appeal and the appellant's justification for it. The court noted that the appellant's registered address was used for communication and that the postal authorities returned mail. The court referenced its earlier decision in 'Meda Raja Kishor Raghuramy Reddy Vs ACIT' when considering the appellant's case.

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)

Sri. A. S. Srinath (HUF), Shivamogga vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Shivamogga

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

ITA 228/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeya.S. Srinath (Huf) The Income Tax Officer No. 1, Mallikarjuna Nilaya Ward 1 & Tps 1St Cross, Hosamane Jail Road Vs. No.75, 100 Feet Road Shivamogga 577201 Gopal Gowda Exten. Pan – Aamha9965J Shivamoga 577201 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rajeev C. Nulvi, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Guru Kumar S., Addl. Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.07.2024 O R D E R Per: Keshav Dubey, J.M. This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi / Cit(A) Dated 09.01.2024 Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/250/2023-24/1059510032(1) Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “1. The Order Of The Authorities Below Is Against The Facts Of The Case & Passed On Assuming The Facts Which Are Unrealistic. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In The Provisions Of The Law, The Assessing Officer Erred In Estimating The Agricultural Expenditure At A Certain Percentage Of Agricultural Income Is Against The Fact, As The Increase In The Gross Receipts May Be For Various Reasons, Which Are Not Dependent On Agricultural Expenditure.

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev C. Nulvi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Guru Kumar S., Addl. CIT-DR

Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 250

Nichampalayam Primary Agricultural Co-Operative Credit Society Limited, Perundurai vs. ADIT-CPC Bengaluru, Bangaluru

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

ITA 40/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Jul 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.40/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 V. Nichampalayam Primary Agricultural- The Ito, Co-Op. Credit Society Ltd., Ward-2(1), 56, Odamedu,Thingalur, Erode. Perundurai-638 055. [Pan: Aaban 2881 L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 80P

Kalia Service Co-Op Bank, Belhangady vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1, Puttur

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

ITA 743/BANG/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 80Section 80ASection 80A(5)Section 80P

Indian Analytical Instruments Association, Powai vs. CPC Or ITO (E), Ward 1(3) Mumbai, Piramal Chamber

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 640/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 11Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 29

Sumeet Subhash Narang, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 42(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 818/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 90

Moonak Welfare Society, Sangrur vs. ITO, Ward, Sunam

In the result, we direct the AO to allow the exemption u/s 11 to the assessee society

ITA 465/CHANDI/2023[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Jun 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A). 3.1 It Was Submitted During The Appellate Proceedings That The Cpc, Bangalore While Processing The Return Of Income Has Disallowed The Exemption On The Ground That Tax Audit Report In Form 10B Should Have Been Filed One Month Prior To The Filing

For Appellant: Shri Jaspal Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ved Parkash Kalia, JCIT, Sr. DR

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

Bijender Singh, Alipurduar vs. ITO, Ward-2(3), Alipurduar

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

ITA 447/KOL/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jun 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 445 To 447/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2019-20, 2021-22 & 2022-23 Bijender Singh Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates, Vs Alipurduar Advocates Siddha Gibson 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213 2Nd Floor Kolkata - 700069 [Pan : Dsnps3610C] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, Jcit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20/05/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate But Identical Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeal, Addl/Jcit(A)-10, Mumbai (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”), Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of 20 Days In Filing Of These Appeals. There Is A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Stating Therein, The Reasons For The Delay. On Perusal Of The Petition, We Are Convinced That The Assessee Was Prevented For Reasonable Cause From Filing This Appeal In Prescribed Time Limit. Accordingly, We

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, JCIT, Sr. D/R

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 249(2)Section 250Section 90

Bijender Singh, Alipurduar vs. ITO, Ward-2(3), Alipurduar

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

ITA 446/KOL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jun 2024AY 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, JCIT, Sr. D/R

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 249(2)Section 250Section 90

Bijender Singh, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-2(3), Alipurduar

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

ITA 445/KOL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jun 2024AY 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, JCIT, Sr. D/R

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 249(2)Section 250Section 90

Juniper Investments Ltd., Mumbai vs. A.O. Cir. 7, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 346/KOL/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Jun 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 115BSection 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)

Shri. Narayana Muralidhar, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-7(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 727/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Mohit Ashok Parmar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian .S, JCIT (DR)

Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69

Shri Mahudi Madhupuri Jain Nsm Bhojanshala & Prashadi Bhavan, Mahudi vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Exemption, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

ITA 184/AHD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Jun 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Aarsi Prasad, CIT- DRFor Respondent: Date of Hearing

Section 11Section 119(2)(b)Section 12A(1)(b)Section 12A(1)(ba)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250

Satpuda Foundation, Amravati vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Nagpur

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 143/NAG/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur03 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. Moryani a/wFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234A

Shivan Vinod Mehra, Malbar Hill Mumbai vs. DCIT-ACIT Circle 1, Asr, Amritsar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 725/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 90

Prem Chand Agrawal, Tonk vs. Income Tax Officer, Tonk

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

ITA 7/JPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Dinesh Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)

Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 154

Anubhav Kapoor, Lucknow vs. Income Tax Officer - 2(1)(1), Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2364/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2016-17]

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 50CSection 50C(2)Section 54Section 54(2)Section 54B

Pudipeddi Venkata Nagamani, Visakhapatnam vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Visakhapatnam

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

ITA 167/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.167/Viz/2024 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Pudipeddi Venkata Nagamani Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.43-3-34, Flat No.102 Ward-2(1) Ayyappa Residency Visakhapatnam Railway New Colony Visakhapatnam [Pan :Ajxpn9659G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Smt.A.Aruna, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Aparna Villuri, DR

Section 115BSection 131Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 144Section 69Section 69A

Sanwar Mal Agarwal, Kolkata vs. ITO, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 949/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyi.T.A. No.949/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

Sini Noushad, Thrissur vs. The ITO, Ward 1(3), Thrissur

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 252/COCH/2023[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Cochin28 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Sa No. 144/Coch/2023 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Sini Noushad The Income Tax Officer Poovathumkiadavil House Ward - 1(3), Thrissur Kara Post, Peethamaballur Vs. Kathiyalam, Thrissur 608671 [Pan: Emrps6227J] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Padmanathan K.V., AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144A

Mahavir Kelavani Mandal, Antroli vs. Ward- Exemption, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 468/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member Assessment Year : 2016-17 Mahavir Kelavani Mandal, Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Antroli, Income-Tax, C/O. Mahavir Kelavani Mandal, Bangalore Nadiad, Gujarat – 387366 Pan: Aactm 6322 R अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sunil Talati, Ar Revenue By : Shri N.J. Vyas, Sr Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 14/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27/05/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar: Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17 Arises Out Of The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Bengaluru (Hereinafter Referred To As 'Cit(A)’) Dated 29.02.2024, In The Matter Of Intimation Issued U/S 143(1) Issued By Cpc, Bangalore On 01.03.2019. 2. Following Are The Grounds Of Appeal Before Us:_ “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Upholding The Disallowance Made In The Intimation Order Passed U/S 143(1) Of The It Act Which Was Passed Without Giving Any Opportunity Of Being Heard To Your Appellant. In The Said Intimation Order, The Claim Of Exemption U/S 11 Of The It Act Is Denied & A Demand Is Raised. Such Arbitrary Disallowance Of Exemption Is Prayed To Be Deleted. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Upheld The Disallowance Of Exemption U/S 11 Of The It Act In The Intimation Order Passed U/S 143(1) Of The It Act Making An Addition Of Rs. 40,67,000/- On Account Of Income Chargeable U/S 12(2) Of The Mahavir Kelavani Mandal Vs. Dcit Asst. Year : 2016-17 2

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Talati, ARFor Respondent: Shri N.J. Vyas, Sr DR

Section 11Section 12(2)Section 12ASection 139(9)Section 143(1)Section 250