Section 139(5) of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.263

Section 139(5) 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(5) is CIT v. Yokogawa India Ltd. (391 ITR 274), cited in 290 of the 830 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 139(5)

CIT v. Yokogawa India Ltd.
391 ITR 274 · 2017 · Supreme Court
290
citing judgments

Deduction under Section 10A or 10AA of the Income-tax Act is computed on the profits of the eligible unit without first setting off losses from other units or non-eligible units. Conversely, losses incurred by an eligible unit are allowed to be set off against the assessee's other taxable business profits.

Shree Balaji Alloys v. CIT
333 ITR 335 · 2011 · Reported
249
citing judgments
PCIT v. Wipro Ltd.
140 Taxmann.com 223 · 2022 · Supreme Court
192
citing judgments

Exemption provisions under Chapter III, such as Section 10B(8), must be interpreted strictly, and any claim for such exemptions must be made in the return of income. The principles governing Chapter III (incomes not forming part of total income) differ from those for Chapter VIA (deductions in computing total income).

DCIT v. Reliance Industries Ltd.
88 ITD 273 · 2004 · ITAT
169
citing judgments

Interest, sales tax, and purchase tax subsidies received by an assessee are generally considered capital receipts, not revenue income, for income tax purposes.

CIT v. Torrent Power Ltd.
354 ITR 630 · 2013 · High Court
166
citing judgments

If an assessee possesses sufficient interest-free own funds to cover investments yielding exempt income, it is presumed that such investments are made from these own funds, precluding any disallowance of interest expenditure under Section 14A, even when borrowed funds are also available.

Lissie Medical Institutions v. CIT
348 ITR 344 · 2012 · High Court
164
citing judgments

The Kerala High Court held that charitable institutions claiming exemption under Section 11 are not entitled to claim depreciation on assets used for charitable purposes, taking a view contrary to most other High Courts.

CIT v. ITI Ltd.
313 ITR 1 · 2009 · Supreme Court
142
citing judgments

An employer is not statutorily obligated to collect evidence from employees regarding the actual utilization of amounts paid towards leave travel concession or conveyance allowance, unless specific requirements are mandated by law or a CBDT circular.

CIT v. Chaphalkar Brothers
400 ITR 279 · 2018 · Supreme Court
136
citing judgments

A subsidy is classified as a capital receipt if its object is to enable the assessee to set up or expand a new or existing unit. Conversely, it is a revenue receipt if its purpose is to help the assessee run the business more profitably.

CIT v. Sitex Industries Ltd.
82 Taxmann.com 171 · 2017 · High Court
117
citing judgments

No disallowance for investments made out of surplus funds can be made if tax-free dividends are earned on such investments.

Chicago Pneumatic India Ltd. v. DCIT
15 SOT 252 · 2007 · ITAT
111
citing judgments

The Assessing Officer must grant the correct deduction after due verification of claims made by the assessee, even if not perfectly articulated initially. This principle applies in assessment proceedings, including those involving specific deductions like those for export-oriented units under Section 10B.

Judgments on Section 139(5)

Shiv Kumar Keshwani, Lakhimpur Kheri vs. ITO-3(4), Lakhimpur

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

ITA 630/LKW/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Aug 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2021-22 Shiv Kumar Keshwani, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Kashinagar, Kashinagar, Lakhimpur 3(4), Lakhimpur-1 Kheri, Uttar Pradesh-262701 Pan: Acgpk1077K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.A. Revenue By: Smt. Pratibha Singh, Addl Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.06.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.08.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Dated 23.08.2024, Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Assessing Officer Passed Under Section 154 For The A.Y. 2021-22 On 30.05.2024. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. Because The Id. "Cit(A)" Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Holding That There Was No Mistake In The Order U/S 154 As There Was No Mistake Apparent From Record & On That Basis In Upholding The Order U/S 154 Of The Act Passed By The Assessing Officer. 2. Because While Upholding The Rectification Order On The Ground That There Was No Mistake Apparent From Record In Terms Of Section 154 Of The Act, The Id. "Cit(A)" Failed To Appreciate That Due To Typographical Error In The Return Of Income The Assessee Had Wrongly Offered Long Term Capital Gain At Rs. 25,66,288/- Instead Of Correct Amount Of Rs. 11,97,893/- & That The Said Error Constituted "Mistake Apparent From Record" In Terms Of Section 154 Of The "Act" Which Mistake Was Rectifiable U/S 154 Of The "Act". 3. Because Order Passed By The Authorities Below Are Unjust & Contrary To Circular No. 014(Xl-35)/1955 Dated 11.04.1955, Wherein Cbdt Has Long

For Appellant: Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Pratibha Singh, Addl CIT DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 154(1)Section 9

ACIT, Mumbai vs. Genext Hardware and Parks Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue‟s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 6208/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice (Retd.) C. V. Bhadang & Shri Prabhash Shankarassistant Commissioner Of V/S. Genext Hardware & Income Tax, Central Circle – बनाम Parks Private Limited 4(2), Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Plot No. C-30, G Block, Raheja Bandra (East), Mumbai – Tower, Bandra Kurla Complex, 400051, Maharashtra Bkc, Mumbai – 400 051, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaccg5567F Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी प्रत्याक्षेपसं./C.O. No.200/Mum/2026 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 6208/Mum/2025) (A.Y. 2017-18) Genext Hardware & Parks V/S. Assistant Commissioner Of Private Limited बनाम Income Tax, Central Circle – Plot No. C-30, G Block, Raheja 4(2), Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Tower, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai – Bkc, Mumbai – 400 051, 400051, Maharashtra Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaccg5567F Appellant/अपीलाथी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी Assessee By Shri Madhur Aggarwal,Advocate Revenue By Shri Basavaraj Hiremath,Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 17.06.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 24.08.2026 आदेश / O R D E R Per Prabhash Shankar [A.M.] :- The Instant Appeal Preferred By The Revenue & Cross Objection Of The Assessee Emanate From The Order Passed By The Learned

Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 22Section 32