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

DCIT, Ncc - 1 (1), Chennai vs. M/S. Dfe Pharma India LLP., Cuddalore

In the result the appeal is allowed

ITA 282/CHNY/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1212/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Dfe Pharma India Llp, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of B-4, Sipcot Industrial Complex, Income Tax, Kudikadu, Cuddalore 607 005. Non Corporate Circle 1(1), [Pan:Aaifd2025J] Chennai. आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.282/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Dfe Pharma India Llp, Income Tax, Non Corporate Circle 1(1), B-4, Sipcot Industrial Complex, Chennai. Kudikadu, Cuddalore 607 005. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri G.S.D. Babu, Advocate Department By : Shri M. Rajan, Cit & Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 21.03.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 01.04.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 1, Chennai Dated 27.02.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2014-15 Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short]. The Revenue Preferred An Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2

For Appellant: Shri G.S.D. Babu, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Rajan, CIT &
Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 263Section 80P

Dfe Pharma India LLP., Bengaluru vs. DCIT, CC - 2(1), Chennai

In the result the appeal is allowed

ITA 1212/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1212/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Dfe Pharma India Llp, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of B-4, Sipcot Industrial Complex, Income Tax, Kudikadu, Cuddalore 607 005. Non Corporate Circle 1(1), [Pan:Aaifd2025J] Chennai. आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.282/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Dfe Pharma India Llp, Income Tax, Non Corporate Circle 1(1), B-4, Sipcot Industrial Complex, Chennai. Kudikadu, Cuddalore 607 005. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri G.S.D. Babu, Advocate Department By : Shri M. Rajan, Cit & Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 21.03.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 01.04.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 1, Chennai Dated 27.02.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2014-15 Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short]. The Revenue Preferred An Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2

For Appellant: Shri G.S.D. Babu, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Rajan, CIT &
Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 263Section 80P