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)

M/S Philips Electronics Nederland B.V., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T.(International Taxation), Circle-2(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2241/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Philips Electronics Dcit (International Nederland B.V. Taxation), Circle-2(1), Kolkata C/O. Deloitte Haskins & Sells Llp, Bengal Intelligent Part, Vs. Building Omega, 13Th & 14Th Floor, Block – Ep & Gp, Sector- V, Salt Lake Electronics Complex, Kolkata-700091. [Pan: Aafcp 4361 F] (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri P.J. Pardiwalla, Sr. Advocate & Shri Ketan K. Ved, Ca Respondent By : Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit Date Of Hearing : 23.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.09.2022 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 24.07.2019 Passed By Dcit (International Taxation), Circle-2(1), Kolkata For The Assessment Year 2015-16. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: “(I) The Learned Assessing Officer [‘Ld. Ao’] & The Hon’Ble Dispute Resolution Panel ['Hon’Ble Drp'J Have Erred In Disregarding The Claim Made By The Appellant During The Course Of The Assessment Proceedings & In Thereby Holding The Amount Of Rs. 85,82,15,139/- Received By The Appellant During The Year Under Consideration From Philips India Limited [‘Pil’] & Preethi Kitchen Appliances Private Limited [‘Preethi’] Pursuant To The Global Service Unit Agreement [‘Gsu'] Is Taxable In India.

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwalla, Sr. Advocate & Shri Ketan KFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT
Section 139(5)

M/S. Shree Hatkeshwara Translines Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. DCIT, Circle-6, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1546/PUN/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1546/Pun/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S.Shree Hatkeshwara Tranlines The Dcit, Circle-6, Pvt. Ltd., Vs Pune. Office No.9, Wonder City Building, Katraj By Pass Road, Katraj, Pune – 411046. Pan: Aabch 1999 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Ms. Rucha Vaidya – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 13/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 18/07/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-8, Pune Which Is Against An Order Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act, 1961, For The A.Y. 2012-13. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. Learned Cit(A)-8, Pune Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming & The Learned Dcit, Circle-6, Pune Erred In Law & On Facts In Levying Penalty Of Rs.30,37,680/- For Concealment For Particulars Of Income U/S 271 (1 )(C) Of The Ita, 1961 Without Appreciating Peculiar Facts Of The Case. 2. Learned I-T Authorities Erred In Law & On Facts In Not Appreciating That Specific Charge, As To Concealment Of Particulars Of Income (I.E. Limb-1) Or Furnishing Of Inaccurate Particulars Of Income (I.E. Limb-2) Was Not Made Out In The Notice U/S 274 Of The Ita, 1961. The I-T Authorities Ought To Have Appreciated That, Non-

Section 139(5)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274