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)

Sri Sai Educational Society, Mahabubnagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Mahabubnagar

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

ITA 101/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.101/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2018-19) Sri Sai Educational Society, Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ward-1, Mahbubnagar. Mahbubnagar, Telangana. Pan: Aafas6773C (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri Mohd. Afzal, Advocate रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Smt. Sheetal Sarin, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 04/06/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 10/06/2024 आदेश/Order Per Laliet Kumar, J.M. :- This Appeal Is Filed By Sri Sai Educational Society (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Addl/Jcit (A)-10 Mumbai (“Ld. Cit(A)”), Dated 04.01.2024 For The Ay 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds : “1. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of [Income Tax (Appeals) Is Against The Law, Weight Of Evidence & Probabilities Of Case. 2. The Learned Additional Commissioner Erred In Confirming The Intimation U/S 143(1) In Which The Gross Receipts Of Rs.4,27,15,832/- Are Treated As Total Income Of The Assessee. 3. The Learned Additional Commissioner Ought To Have Appreciated That The Assessee Filed Itr-7,Inadvertently & Offered The Total

For Appellant: Shri Mohd. Afzal, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Smt. Sheetal Sarin, DR
Section 12ASection 139Section 139(9)Section 143(1)

Aark Infosoft Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 681/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra R. Kambleिनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Vs. Aark Infosoft Private Limited, The Acit, 45, Shetrunjay, 2Nd Floor, Above Circle-1(1)(1), Central Bank Of India, Bhattha Ahmedabad Cross Road, Paldi, Ahmedabad Gujarat-380007 Pan : Aahca 9986 H अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Divyang Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Santosh Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.02.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21.02.2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta: Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)" For Short] Dated 27.07.2023 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act" For Short], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under:- “1. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Issuing A Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Act? 2. Whether On The Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Making Disallowance Of Employees' Contribution To Pf & Esic Of Rs.5,51,657/- U/S 36(1) (Va) Of The Act?

For Appellant: Shri Divyang Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Santosh Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 139(9)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 269SSection 36(1)Section 40Section 68

Shailaja Lalit Kotian, Mumbai vs. Central Processing Centrem Income Tax Department, Bengaluru

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

ITA 2960/MUM/2023[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Dec 2023AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2960/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2022-23) Shailaja Lalit Kotian बिधम/ Central Processing B/25, 6Th Floor, Namaskar Center, Income Tax Vs. Maas Chs, Poonam Nagar, Department, Bengalure Mumbai-400093. Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Bandra (E) Room No.615, Mumbai-400051. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Agipk3192M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Jeetan Nagpal/Shri Sujit Kotian/Shri Ali Sayyed Revenue By: Shri S. N. Kabra (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 28/11/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 13/12/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/(Nfac), Delhi Dated 29.06.2023 For The Assessment Year 2022-23. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Of The Assessee Are As Under: - “1. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Appellate Order Dated 29.06.2023 [‘The Impugned Order’] Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [‘The Hon'Ble Cit(A)’] Is Based Upon Conjectures, Surmises & Assuming Incorrect Facts & Therefore, Is Bad In Law.

For Appellant: Shri Jeetan Nagpal/Shri SujitFor Respondent: Shri S. N. Kabra (Sr. AR)
Section 143(1)Section 199Section 234A