Section 139(4) of the Income Tax Act

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
91
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
78
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
78
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
76
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
66
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
66
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
66
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)

Lord Venkateshwara Ladies Educational and Welfare Trust, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemptions Ward-1, Bangalore

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

ITA 616/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Lord Venkateshwara Ladies Vs. Ito (Exemption), Educational & Welfare Trust, Ward –1, No.1696, Bengaluru. 5Th ‘A’ Cross, Banashankari 1St Stage, Bengaluru – 560 080. Pan : Aaatl 6403 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Ravishankar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. V. Parithivel, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 30.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 01.12.2023

For Appellant: Shri. Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. V. Parithivel, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 250

Mr Ganesh Rambhav Pakhe, Aurangabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Aurangabad

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1097/PUN/2023[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Pune14 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1097/Pun/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 142Section 142(1)Section 54F

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Panaji vs. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Mathiyan, Muzaffarnagar

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 4/PAN/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji06 Nov 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.3 & 4/Pan/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14

Section 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 153ASection 56(2)(vii)

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Panaji vs. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Mathiyan, Muzaffarnagar

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 3/PAN/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji06 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.3 & 4/Pan/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14

Section 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 153ASection 56(2)(vii)

Sahara Infrastructure & Housing Limited, Kolkata vs. ACIT Central Circle-1, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1726/DEL/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmasahara Infrastructure & Vs. Acit, Housing Ltd, Central Circle-1, Sahara India Sadan, 2A, New Delhi Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata-700071 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aabcg2655B Assessee By : Sh. Dinesh Verma, Adv Shri Hardeep Singh, Ca Revenue By: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 30/10/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 02/11/2023

For Appellant: Sh. Dinesh Verma, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR
Section 139(4)Section 143(3)

Mr. Sujeev Sanjeev Kharwadkar, Maharashtra vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-31(3), Bandra Kurla Complex

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

ITA 2478/MUM/2023[AY 2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Nov 2023

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry (Jm)

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 139(5)

Income Tax Officer-12(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Ankita Reality and Development Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue as well as CO of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2212/MUM/2023[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2023AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2212/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Ito-12(1)(1) बिधम/ Ankita Reality & Room No.129 1St Floor, Development Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. H. Cts-40-44, Sahara India Road, Mumbai-400020. Points, Sv Road, Goregaon West, Mumbai- 400104. Cross Objection No. 106/Mum/2023 Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.2212/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Ankita Reality & बिधम/ Ito-12(1)(1) Room No.129 1St Floor, Development Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cts-40-44, Sahara India Aayakar Bhavan, M. H. Points, Sv Road, Goregaon Road, Mumbai-400020. West, Mumbai-400104. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaeca4513D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Siddharth Srivastave/Ms. Ekta Shah Revenue By: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 17/10/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Revenue & The Cross- Objection (Co) Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 19.04.2023 For The Ay 2015-16. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Revenue Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Deleting The Penalty Levied U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) & Pointed Out That Assessee Had Not 2 Co. No.106/M/23 A.Y. 2015-16 Ankita Reality & Development Pvt. Ltd. Filed The Return Of Income U/S 139(1) Of The Act. & The Cross- Objection (Co) Has Been Filed By The Assessee, Supporting The Action Of The Ld Cit(A), As Well As Has Raised Certain Legal Issues.

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Srivastave/Ms. EktaFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha (Sr. AR)
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 147Section 148Section 194CSection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Smt Sunitha Prem Victor, Trivandrum vs. ITO Ward 2(3), Trivandrum

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

ITA 1009/COCH/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dassunita Prem Victor The Income Tax Officer Tc 25/2813 Mathrubhumi Road Ward – 2(3) Vs. Vanchiyoor, Trivandrum 695035 Trivandrum [Pan:Akopv8566C] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Divya Ravindran, Advocate Revenue By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 11.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.10.2023 O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, Am This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 26.10.2022 By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi [Cit(A)],Partly Allowing Her Appeal Contesting Her Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’) Dated 27.12.2016 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Returned Her Income For The Relevant Year On 18.12.2014 At Rs.5,67,250, Claiming Deduction Under Section 54 Of The Act At Rs.91,05,096 In Respect Of Construction Of A Residential House During The Relevant Year Against The Capital Gain Arising To Her On Sale Of 3 Pieces Of Land Sold During March, 2013 To November, 2013. The Claim Was, Admitting Her Mistake Inasmuch As The Capital Asset/S Sold Was Not A Residential House, Requested By The Assessee Vide Letter Dated 29.11.2016 For Being Considered U/S. 54F Of The Act; She Not Owning Any Other Residential House On The Date Of Transfer/S. Earlier, On 25.11.2016, A Revised Statement Of Income Was Filed Claiming Exemption With Reference To The Total

For Appellant: Ms. Divya Ravindran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54F

Marayamuttom Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd vs. The Income Tax Officer

WP(C)/32340/2023HC Kerala13 Oct 2023
Section 119Section 13(1)Section 139Section 139(1)

Sri. Dadapeer Kamar, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 519/BANG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessmentyear:2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Mallaharao, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for Revenue
Section 143(3)

ACIT, Central Circle, Panaji vs. Shri Ajit Mittal, Panaji

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 70/PAN/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji13 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.69 & 70/Pan/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2015-16 & 2016-17

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 153A

ACIT, Central Circle, Panaji vs. Shri Ajit Mittal, Panaji

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 69/PAN/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji13 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.69 & 70/Pan/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2015-16 & 2016-17

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 153A

M/S. Khadi Grammodhyog Pratisthan, Bikaner vs. ADIT, CPC / ITO, Ward-1(2), Bangaluru / Bikaner

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 87/JODH/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur31 Aug 2023AY 2019-20
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 250(6)

Bethany Seva Sangam, Durg vs. Income Tax Officer, (Exemption) Ward-2, Raipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 72/RPR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.72/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Bethany Seva Sangam C/O. Bethany College Of Nursing, Borsi, Durg (C.G.) Pan : Aaaab0776D .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, (Exemption), Ward-2, Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 12ASection 139Section 147Section 148Section 272ASection 272A(2)(e)

The Dy.CIT, Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad vs. Bina Divyangbhai Shah, Bhavnagar

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA(SS) No

ITSSA 40/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Ld. Cit(A) Had Arisen From Assessment Order Dated 27.09.2021 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer(Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 143(3) Read With Section 153A(1)(B) Of The 1961 Act(Din No. Itba/Ast/M/153A/2021-22/1035914669(1).

For Appellant: CA Shri Mohit Balani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Kamlesh Makwana, CIT-D.R
Section 132Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153A(1)(b)Section 250

Yesha Dhirajlal Thakrar, Rajkot vs. The DCIT, NFAC Delhi, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 75/RJT/2023[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot18 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Ld. Cit(A) From Penalty Order Dated 29.01.2022 (Din: Itba/Pnl/F/271(1)(B)/2021-22/1039193062(1)) Passed By Ld. Assessing Officer,Nfac, Delhi(Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 271(1)(B) Of The 1961 Act Levying Penalty Of Rs. 30,000/- Against The Assesse For Non Compliance Of Three Notices Dated 27.07.2021, 06.08.2021 & 16.08.2021 Issued During Reassessment Proceedings , All Three Aforesaid Notices U/S 142(1) Of The 1961 Act. The Proceedings Were Conducted Before Division Bench Through E-Court Through Virtual Hearing Mode.

For Appellant: Shri R D Lalchandani,AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. A.K.Pandey, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 271BSection 56(2)(vii)

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam vs. Venkateswara Rao Thotakura, Secunderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 17/VIZ/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam10 Aug 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri I. Kama Sastry, ARFor Respondent: Sri ON Hari Prasada Rao
Section 139(1)Section 154Section 295(1)Section 295(2)Section 90Section 90ASection 91

Salma Ahmed, Chennai vs. ITO, Non-Corporate Ward-14(3), Chennai

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

ITA 778/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 778/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Salma Ahmed, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 33A, Thomas Nagar, Little Mount, Non Corporate Ward -14(3), Saidapet, Chennai 600 015. Chennai. [Pan:Aovps4111D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri K. Prasanna, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 25.07.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.07.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi Dated 02.05.2023 For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Her Return Of Income Belatedly For The Assessment Year 2016-17 On 31.03.2018 Under Section 139(4) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] Declaring A Total Income Of ₹.71,09,420/- After Claiming Deduction Under Section 54F

For Appellant: Shri K. Prasanna, CAFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 45Section 54F

Fishery Survey of India Employees Cooperative Credit and Thrift Society, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, the grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 23/VIZ/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam14 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.23/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2019-20) Fishery Survey Of India Employees Vs. Income Tax Officer Cooperative Credit & Thrift Ward-1(1) Society Visakhapatnam Fishing Harbour Complex Beach Road, Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aafat3533M] अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri C Subrahmanyam, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 27.04.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14.07.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1048861637(1) Dated 17.01.2023 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2019-20, Arising Out Of The Order Passed U/S 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘Act’) Dated 24.12.2020. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, A Society Registered Under The Co-Operative Society Act Had Filed It’S Return Of Income On 2

For Appellant: Shri C Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, DR
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 80P

Dandkaranya Gra, Om Bogar Sheti Shakari Pat Sanstha Ltd, Singli vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Sangli

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

ITA 427/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.427/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Dandkaranya Gramin Bigar Vs. Ito, Ward-2(1), Sangli. Sheti Shakari Pat Sanstha Ltd., Chabukswarwadi, Tal. Miraj, Dist. Sangli- 416401. Pan : Aacad5166H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Gawali Date Of Hearing : 21.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.07.2023 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Nfac’] Dated 16.12.2022 For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Briefly, The Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Had Filed Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2018-19 On 20.12.2018. Against The Said Return Of Income, An Intimation U/S 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) Was Received By The Appellant.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawali
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 148Section 5Section 80ASection 80A(5)Section 80P