Section 139(9) of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.263

Section 139(9) 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(9) is CIT v. Merchant (280 CTR 381), cited in 68 of the 234 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 139(9)

CIT v. Merchant
280 CTR 381 · 2015 · High Court
68
citing judgments

The scope of Section 43B and Section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act are distinct, meaning they cannot be read together to determine an assessee's entitlement to a deduction for belatedly paid employee contributions.

Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. vs. DCIT 313 ITR 263; Ramond Limited v. DCIT
315 ITR 72 · 2009 · High Court
47
citing judgments

Income is not taxable as Fees for Technical Services (FTS) if the services are not 'made available' to the recipient, according to the interpretation of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAA). If a treaty lacks an FTS clause, income is taxable as business income only if a permanent establishment exists in India and the income is attributable to it.

DCIT v. PanAmSat International Systems Inc.
9 SOT 100 · 2006 · ITAT
35
citing judgments

Payment for transponder facility does not constitute royalty if it is not for a secret process and does not make technical knowledge available under a DTAA.

ITO v. Seth Bros. (SC)
74 ITR 836 · 1969 · Reported
24
citing judgments

Evidence collected during an illegal search can still be used against the assessee. An assessment made based on such evidence is valid.

Invensys Systems Inc. v. DI.T (AAR)
317 ITR 438 · 2009 · Reported
23
citing judgments

Payments for services are not taxable in India as Fees for Included Services (FIS) under a Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) if they do not make technical knowledge, know-how, or experience available to the Indian recipient.

CLSA Ltd. v. ITO(IT)
305 ITR 208 · 2008 · Reported
21
citing judgments

Payments received for referring international clients to another entity do not constitute 'fees for technical services' if they do not involve rendering technical, managerial, or consultancy services. Such fees may be construed as commission income.

DDIT (Exemptions) v. Petroleum Sports Promotion Board
362 ITR 235 · 2014 · High Court
14
citing judgments

Gross receipts cannot be taxed as income, and expenses must be allowed accordingly, even if exemption under Section 11 is denied. Income should be assessed under 'Income from Other Sources' with deductions under Section 57.

Calcutta Management Association v. ITO
42 ITD 62 · 1992 · ITAT
14
citing judgments

An Assessing Officer is not justified in rejecting a claim for exemption under section 11 of the Income-tax Act. The ITAT has also held that an opportunity of being heard need not be afforded under section 139(9) in certain circumstances.

S. Kumar Enterprises (Synfabs) Ltd. v. JCIT
170 TTJ 37 · 2015 · ITAT
12
citing judgments

Assessments under section 143(3) and 144 have distinct and different consequences. An assessment under section 143(3) involves reviewing the income tax return and requesting evidence of income and expenditures.

CIT v. Mahalaxmi Rice Factory
163 Taxmann 565 · 2007 · High Court
11
citing judgments

Judgments on Section 139(9)

Shri Kalpesh Bhupendrabhai Brahambhatt, Vadodara vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2), Now Ward-3(1)(2), Vadodara

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

ITA 1990/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1990/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2011-12 Kalpesh Bhupendrabhai Vs. Ito, Brahambhatt, Ward – 5(2), Baroda, B/12, Mrudand Park Society, Now 3(1)(2), B/H. Bright School, Vip Road, Vadodara. Karelibaug, Vadodara – 390 018. अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mukund Bakshi, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Apoorva Bhardwaj, Sr.D.R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 09.08.2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.10.2018 आदेश/O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Appeal Has Been Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Appellate Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-3, Vadodara [“Cit(A)” In Short] Relevant To Assessment Year 2011- 12. 2. Assessee Has Raised The Revised Grounds Of Appeal Vide Letter Dated 6Th August, 2018 Which Are Reproduced As Under: “1. The Ld. Cit (Appeals) Has Erred In Law & In Facts In Not Admitting The Additional Evidences Filed In Support Of The Appellant'S Claim Against The Additions Made In The Assessment. The Hon'Ble Tribunal Be Pleased To Admit The Same & Allow Necessary Reliefs. 2. The Ld. Cit (Appeals) Has Erred In Law & In Facts In Confirming The Action Of The Ld. A.O. In Holding That An Amount Of Rs.22,71,343/- Received In The Course Of Business Of Plying Of Motor Trucks Was To Be Assessed U/S. 56 Of The It Act & That No Further Allowance Of Expenditure From The Same Could Be Allowed.

For Appellant: Shri Mukund Bakshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Apoorva Bhardwaj, Sr.D.R
Section 194CSection 44ASection 56

Pranab Kumar Banik, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Centre Circle-II, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee on ground No

ITA 373/KOL/2014[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Apr 2017AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.373/Kol/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2007-2008) Pranab Kumar Banik, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-Ii, C/O- Salarpuria Jajodia & Co Aaykar Bhavan, Purva, 7, Chittaranjan Avenue, 110,Shantipally, Kolkata Kolkata-700072 Kolkata-700107 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Adqpb 4401 K .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.Jhajharia, Fca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Bani Brata Dutta,Adl.Cit-(Dr) सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 12/04/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 26/04/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2007-2008, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Iii, Kolkata, In Appeal No.258/Cc-Ii/Cit(A)C-Iii/2008-09/Kolkata, Dated 31.12.2013, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section 147/144 Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 31.12.2008. 2. Brief Facts Qua The Assessee Are That In The Case Of Assessee A Search & Seizure Operation Was Conducted At The Residential Premises Of Shri Pranab Kumar Banik At 25, Dumdum Park, Kolkata-700055 & The Office Of The Ajanta Group Of Companies & Its Directors. The Assessee Is A Director Of M/S Ajanta Footcare (India) Pvt. Ltd., One Of The Main Companies Of The Ajanta Group & A Partner In The Association Of 2 Pranab Kumar Banik

For Appellant: Shri S.Jhajharia, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Bani Brata Dutta,Adl.CIT-(DR)
Section 139(9)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148