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)

DCIT, Circle-4, Patna vs. Kumar Arunodaya, Patna

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed, the appeals of the revenue is dismissed and the Cross-objections of the assessee are also dismissed

ITA 89/PAT/2020[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Patna07 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(3)Section 23

Kumar Arunosaya, Patna vs. A.O., Circle-6, Patna

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed, the appeals of the revenue is dismissed and the Cross-objections of the assessee are also dismissed

ITA 33/PAT/2020[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Patna07 Nov 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(3)Section 23

Wholery Infrastructure Private Limited, Kota, Rajasthan vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Kota, Rajasthan

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 525/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 139(9)Section 154Section 154(1)(a)Section 44A

Dushkal Go Sewa Samiti, Sumerpur vs. ITO (Exemption), Jodhpur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 9/JODH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur06 Oct 2023AY 2017-18
Section 11Section 139(9)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154

Dushkal Go Sewa Samiti, Sumerpur vs. ITO (Exemption), Jodhpur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5/JODH/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur06 Oct 2023AY 2018-19
Section 11Section 139(9)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154

Shri. Venkatesh Prasad, Mysore vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Mysore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 193/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George Kassessment Year : 2017-18 Shri Venkatesh Prasad, Vs. Ito, Balaji Niwas, 2Nd Main Road, Ward - 1(2), H. D. Kote – 571 114. Mysore. Pan : Acqph 3972 E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. S. Lokanath, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate, Standing Counsel For Revenue. Date Of Hearing : 21.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.09.2023

For Appellant: Shri. S. Lokanath, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate, Standing Counsel for Revenue
Section 139(1)Section 139(9)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69C

Mr. Saleem Thangal Kader Plakad, Individual, Udupi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2, Mangaluru

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 541/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri S.V. Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Parthivel, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115BSection 132Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 69

Mr. Saleem Thangal Kader Plakad, Individual, Udupi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Mangaluru

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 540/BANG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri S.V. Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Parthivel, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115BSection 132Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 69

Mr. Saleem Thangal Kader Palkad, Udupi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2, Udupi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 539/BANG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri S.V. Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Parthivel, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115BSection 132Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 69

Dalmia Laminators Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir. 7(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 106/KOL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(3)Section 2(24)Section 250Section 3Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 68

Amrut Rajendrakumar Bora, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5, Pune

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 563/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Pune04 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 139(9)Section 143(1)Section 246ASection 246A(1)(a)Section 44A

M.P.Re-Cycling Co. Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 488/MUM/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2023AY 2016-2017
Section 139(1)Section 139(9)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

Patel Engineering Co Ltd Employees Gratuity Fund, Mumbai vs. DCIT CPC-Bangaluru, Bangaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1267/MUM/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Anuj KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Ms. Indira Adakil
Section 10(25)(iv)Section 139(9)Section 143(1)Section 250

V K Patel Securities Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax-CPC, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1009/MUM/2023[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2023AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Rahul Chaudhary: A.Y : 2019-20 V.K. Patel Securities Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Assistant Director Of Income 810A, 8Th Floor, P.J. Tower, Tax – Cpc, Bangalore. Dalal Street, Fort, (Respondent) Mumbai 400 001. Pan : Aaacv3587A (Appellant)

For Appellant: Shri Hiten VasantFor Respondent: Ms. Vranda U. Matkari
Section 139(9)Section 143(1)Section 246A(1)(a)Section 44A

Shri Yashpal Nehra, Bathinda vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bathinda

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 713/ASR/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar19 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 139Section 139(9)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 44A

M/S Mr Pratap Public Chariable Trust, Chennai vs. ITO, Exemptions Ward-4, Chennai

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

ITA 432/CHNY/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Jun 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh

For Appellant: Shri Saroj Kumar Parida, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson, Addl.CIT
Section 139(9)Section 143(1)

Kerala State Electronics Development Corporation vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

WP(C)/28909/2013HC Kerala15 Jun 2023
Section 139(9)Section 16Section 264

Shanay Jhaveri, Mumbai vs. ITO-It-3(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 429/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

Section 139(9)Section 143(1)

Siddhant Machindra Mhaske, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(3), Pune

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 318/PUN/2023[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Pune02 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri M.G. Jasnani
Section 139(9)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 234A

Sana Tondon Benefit Trust, Kolkata vs. I.T.O.(Exemption) - Ward-1(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 553/KOL/2022[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 May 2023AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.553/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Sana Tondon Benefit Trust..........................................………...…..…Appellant 4, Copper Street, Richi Park, Kolkata-700020. [Pan: Aadas8436Q] Vs. Ito (Exemption), Ward-1(3), Kolkata..................................…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 13, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order :May 01, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 13.09.2022 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Has Submitted That The Assessee Is A Benefit Trust Formed On 27.03.2009 & Registered By A Deed Executed On 15.06.2010. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income By Declaring Rs.1,01,590/- As Income. However, While Filing Of Return Of Income, The Assessee Mistakenly Filed Itr 7 Instead Of Itr 5. The

Section 139(9)Section 143(1)Section 250