Section 139(2)

Section 139(2) — the law in short

What the courts have decided on section 139(2), in one screen. Read this first; open an entry when you need the facts, the reasoning and the source.

• Marshall Sons & Co (India) Ltd v ITO Supreme CourtHelps taxpayer
  Our scheme said the merger takes effect from 1 January but the NCLT only sanctioned it two years later. The Assessing Officer has issued notices to the transferor company for the two years in between. Which date governs?
  The date specified in the scheme, unless the Court fixed another one. The Supreme Court held that every scheme of amalgamation has necessarily to provide a date with effect from which the amalgamation or transfer shall take place; that it is open to the Court while sanctioning the scheme to modify that date and prescribe such date as it thinks appropriate, in which case that date governs; but that where the Court does not prescribe any specific date and merely sanctions the scheme presented to it, it should follow that the date of amalgamation or transfer is the date specified in the scheme as the transfer date. On that footing the notices issued to the transferor company for the intervening period were not warranted in law, and the business carried on by the transferor in the meantime is to be deemed to have been carried on for and on behalf of the transferee.
• CIT v Onkar Saran and Sons Supreme CourtHelps taxpayer
  I concealed income in my original return, and repeated the same figures in the return I filed after a section 148 notice. Which year's penalty law applies - the old one or the one in force when the later return went in?
  The law in force when the original return was filed. The Supreme Court dismissed the Revenue's appeals and held that where multiple returns are filed for a year, the law applicable to penalty proceedings is that in force on the date of the original return, if any. It is settled since Brij Mohan that penalty is governed by the law on the date of the offending return; the question was which return is the offending one. Since a penalty on reassessment can be quantified by reference to the income originally returned, the same return must also fix the date of the concealment.

Listed strongest first: Supreme Court, then High Court, then Tribunal, then CBDT. Nothing here has yet been read in full by a chartered accountant — open an entry to see where it came from.