Section 139 of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.263

Section 139 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 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 is CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (320 ITR 561), cited in 1,673 of the 3,629 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 139

CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd.
320 ITR 561 · 2010 · Supreme Court
1,673
citing judgments

An Assessing Officer cannot initiate reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act based on a mere change of opinion. Reassessment is permissible only when there is fresh tangible material leading to the belief of income escapement, not merely a review of existing facts.

CIT v. Sinhgad Technical Education Society
397 ITR 344 · 2017 · Supreme Court
1,589
citing judgments

For assessments under Section 153C, a notice is legally unsustainable if there is no incriminating material correlated to the specific assessment years for which reassessment is sought.

Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT
293 ITR 226 · 2007 · Supreme Court
576
citing judgments

The deductor cannot be treated as an assessee-in-default under Section 201(1) if the deductee has already paid the tax or offered the impugned receipts in their return of income. However, interest under Section 201(1A) for delayed deposit of tax can still be levied up to the date of filing of the return of income by the deductee.

Phool Chand Bajrang Lal v. ITO
203 ITR 456 · 1993 · Supreme Court
396
citing judgments

Reassessment proceedings under Section 147 are valid even after a scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3), provided the Assessing Officer forms a reason to believe, based on definite, specific, and reliable information, that income escaped assessment due to the assessee's failure to fully and truly disclose material facts.

CIT v. Orient Craft Ltd.
354 ITR 536 · 2013 · High Court
366
citing judgments

Reassessment of income, especially after a summary assessment under Section 143(1), requires the Assessing Officer to possess fresh, tangible material to form a reason to believe that income has escaped assessment; a mere reappraisal of existing records or a change of opinion without new material is not permissible.

Commissioner of Income-Tax, Udaipur v. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sandh Ltd.
35 Taxmann.com 616 · 2013 · High Court
304
citing judgments

No disallowance can be made under Section 36(1)(va) or Section 43B for delayed payment of employee's contributions to ESI or PF if these amounts are deposited by the assessee on or before the due date for filing the return of income under Section 139(1). This aligns the treatment of employee contributions with employer contributions for allowability.

Canara Housing Development Co. v. DCIT
49 Taxmann.com 98 · 2014 · High Court
283
citing judgments

Proceedings under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act are not confined solely to incriminating material found during a search, and the Assessing Officer can assess total income for the relevant years.

State of West Bengal v. Kesoram Industries Limited
10 SCC 201 · 2004 · Supreme Court
279
citing judgments

A taxing statute must be interpreted strictly based on what is clearly expressed, without implying anything not stated or importing provisions to supply deficiencies. A person must clearly fall within the ambit of the charging section for tax to be levied.

Jai Steel (India) v. Asstt. CIT
36 Taxmann.com 523 · 2013 · High Court
267
citing judgments

An assessee cannot claim deductions or expenditures in a Section 153A assessment that were not claimed in the original completed assessment, even if documents were found during a search.

CIT v. Foramer France
264 ITR 566 · 2003 · Supreme Court
253
citing judgments

Reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year are invalid unless the assessee failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment. Without such failure, the notice issued under Section 148 is time-barred and without jurisdiction.

Judgments on Section 139

Purushothama Reddy Vanki Reddy, Tirupathi vs. ADIT, (Int. Taxn)-1, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the stay application is dismissed

ITA 526/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Dec 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / Ita No. 526/Hyd/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Purushothama Reddy Vs. Adit (Intn Taxation)-1, Vankireddy Hyderabad Tirupathi [Pan No. Aetpv4382D] अपीलधर्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent S.A. No. 19/Hyd/2022 (Arising Out Of Ita No.526/Hyd/2022) (निर्धारण‍वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Purushothama Reddy Adit (Intn Taxation)-1, Vankireddy Vs Hyderabad Tirupathi [Pan No. Aetpv4382D] आवेदक / Applicant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent निर्धाररती‍द्वधरध / Assessee By: Shri H. Srinivasulu, Ar रधजस्‍व‍द्वधरध / Revenue By: Ms. Swapna, Dr सुिवधई‍की‍तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 29/11/2022 घोर्णध की‍तधरीख/Pronouncement On: 05/12/2022 आदेश / Order Per K. Narasimha Chary, Jm: Aggrieved By The Order Dated 11/08/2022 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Hyderabad (“Ld. Cit(A)”), In The S.A.No. 19/Hyd/2022 Case Of Purushothama Reddy Vankireddy (“The Assessee”) For The Assessment Year 2018-19, Assessee Preferred This Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri H. Srinivasulu, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Swapna, DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 295(1)

M/S Redisolve Software P Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT Cor Circle 5 (1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in I

ITA 524/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 254/Chny/2016 & 521 To 524/Chny/2018 Assessment Years:2010-11, 2009-10, 10-11, 11-12, 12-13 M/S. Redisolve Software P. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 18, Cenotaph 1St Street, Alwarpet, Income Tax, Chennai 600 035. Corporate Circle 5(1)/5(2), [Pan:Aadcr3467N] Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjunraj C.A. For Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 22.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: The Appeal Filed By The Assessee In I.T.A. No. 254/Chny/2016 For The Assessment Year 2010-11 Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax –Chennai-5, Chennai Dated 12.03.2015 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short]. The Appeals Filed By The Assessee In I.T.A. Nos. 521, 522, 523 & 524/Chny/2018 Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 3, Chennai Dated

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjunraj C.A. for Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT
Section 10ASection 119(2)(b)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 263

M/S Redisolve Software P Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT Cor Circle 5 (1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in I

ITA 523/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 254/Chny/2016 & 521 To 524/Chny/2018 Assessment Years:2010-11, 2009-10, 10-11, 11-12, 12-13 M/S. Redisolve Software P. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 18, Cenotaph 1St Street, Alwarpet, Income Tax, Chennai 600 035. Corporate Circle 5(1)/5(2), [Pan:Aadcr3467N] Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjunraj C.A. For Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 22.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: The Appeal Filed By The Assessee In I.T.A. No. 254/Chny/2016 For The Assessment Year 2010-11 Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax –Chennai-5, Chennai Dated 12.03.2015 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short]. The Appeals Filed By The Assessee In I.T.A. Nos. 521, 522, 523 & 524/Chny/2018 Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 3, Chennai Dated

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjunraj C.A. for Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT
Section 10ASection 119(2)(b)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 263

M/S Redisolve Software P Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT Cor Circle 5 (1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in I

ITA 522/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 254/Chny/2016 & 521 To 524/Chny/2018 Assessment Years:2010-11, 2009-10, 10-11, 11-12, 12-13 M/S. Redisolve Software P. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 18, Cenotaph 1St Street, Alwarpet, Income Tax, Chennai 600 035. Corporate Circle 5(1)/5(2), [Pan:Aadcr3467N] Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjunraj C.A. For Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 22.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: The Appeal Filed By The Assessee In I.T.A. No. 254/Chny/2016 For The Assessment Year 2010-11 Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax –Chennai-5, Chennai Dated 12.03.2015 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short]. The Appeals Filed By The Assessee In I.T.A. Nos. 521, 522, 523 & 524/Chny/2018 Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 3, Chennai Dated

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjunraj C.A. for Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT
Section 10ASection 119(2)(b)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 263

M/S Redisolve Software P Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT Cor Circle 5 (1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in I

ITA 521/CHNY/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 254/Chny/2016 & 521 To 524/Chny/2018 Assessment Years:2010-11, 2009-10, 10-11, 11-12, 12-13 M/S. Redisolve Software P. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 18, Cenotaph 1St Street, Alwarpet, Income Tax, Chennai 600 035. Corporate Circle 5(1)/5(2), [Pan:Aadcr3467N] Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjunraj C.A. For Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 22.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: The Appeal Filed By The Assessee In I.T.A. No. 254/Chny/2016 For The Assessment Year 2010-11 Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax –Chennai-5, Chennai Dated 12.03.2015 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short]. The Appeals Filed By The Assessee In I.T.A. Nos. 521, 522, 523 & 524/Chny/2018 Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 3, Chennai Dated

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjunraj C.A. for Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT
Section 10ASection 119(2)(b)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 263

Redisolve Software P Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in I

ITA 254/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 254/Chny/2016 & 521 To 524/Chny/2018 Assessment Years:2010-11, 2009-10, 10-11, 11-12, 12-13 M/S. Redisolve Software P. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 18, Cenotaph 1St Street, Alwarpet, Income Tax, Chennai 600 035. Corporate Circle 5(1)/5(2), [Pan:Aadcr3467N] Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjunraj C.A. For Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 22.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: The Appeal Filed By The Assessee In I.T.A. No. 254/Chny/2016 For The Assessment Year 2010-11 Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax –Chennai-5, Chennai Dated 12.03.2015 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short]. The Appeals Filed By The Assessee In I.T.A. Nos. 521, 522, 523 & 524/Chny/2018 Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 3, Chennai Dated

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjunraj C.A. for Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT
Section 10ASection 119(2)(b)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 263

M/S. Jeevandarshi Marketing Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 6(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 509/KOL/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Nov 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 509/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2019-2020 M/S. Jeevandarshi Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(2), Kolkata 4Th Floor Vs 9, India Exchange Place Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aaacj8585A] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sunil Surana, A/R Revenue By : Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24/11/2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/11/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Rajesh Kumar: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 23/08/2022, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act’), For Assessment Year 2019-2020. 2. The Sole Issue Raised By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Order Of The Assessing Officer Wherein The Assessing Officer Had Disallowed The Carry Forward Of Business Loss Of Rs.72,96,597/- On The Ground That The Return Was Filed On 01/11/2019 Whereas The Due Date Of Filing Was On 31/10/2019. 3. Facts In Brief Are That The Assessee Filed The Return Of Income On 01/11/2019 Declaring Total Loss At Rs.72,96,596/-. The Same Was Processed By The Central Processing Centre (Cpc), Bengaluru U/S 143(1) Of The Act Vide Intimation Dt. 30/04/2020, Wherein The Claim Of The Assessee Of Carry Forward Of Loss To Subsequent Year Was Rejected On The Ground That The Return Was Filed On 01/11/2019. 4. Aggrieved The Assesse Carried The Matter In Appeal Before The Ld. Cit(A). The Ld. Cit(A) Simply Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee By

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, A/RFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. CIT, D/R
Section 143(1)Section 250Section 80I