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)

Nehal Ahmed, Patna vs. ACIT, Circle- 4, Patna

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 365/PAT/2024[A.Y. 2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna30 Jan 2025

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.365/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Nehal Ahmed..………………..….....…..…………………....Appellant House No – B/15, New Azimabad Colony (East), Sector-B, Sandalpur, Mahendru, Patna- 800006. [Pan: Aerpa2555B] Vs. Acit, Circle-4, Patna……..….…….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Pankaj Kumar, Ca Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kumar, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 28, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 30, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 01.03.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Brief Facts Of The Care Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Earned Income From Civil Contract. The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2016-17 By Declaring An Income Of Rs.10,58,610/-. The Assessee Initially Had Filed Return Of Income U/S 139(9) Of The Act & Subsequently Revised It Declaring The Same Income. The Assessee Disclosed Income From Contractual Receipt Amounting To Rs.92,51,630/- & Declared Taxable Income U/S 44Ad On Presumptive Basis At Rs.9,25,163/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was

Section 139(9)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 44A