THE FEDERATION OF INDIAN PUBLISHERS,NEAR JNU vs. WARD EXEMP 2(3), DELHI, CIVIC CENTRE,NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 163/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 February 2026AY 2024-25Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal in the interest of justice. The Tribunal directed the assessing authority to verify the assessee's application of income to determine if it falls under Rule 17B(a)(III) of the Income Tax Rules, granting the appellant three effective opportunities.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal arises against an order upholding the denial of Section 11 exemption due to filing Form 10B instead of Form 10BB. The assessee contended that its case falls under Rule 17B(a)(III) as part of its income was applied outside India. The appeal was filed with a delay of 99 days, which was condoned.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee is eligible for exemption under Section 11 despite filing Form 10B instead of 10BB, and whether its case falls under Rule 17B(a)(III) concerning the application of income outside India.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 11,Section 143(1),Section 17B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI

Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara

Hearing: 10.02.2026Pronounced: 10.02.2026

ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2024-25 arises against the Addl./JCIT(A), Agra’s DIN & order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2025-26/1079012042(1) dated 29.07.2025, in proceedings u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

2.

Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.

3.

Delay of 99 days in filing of the instant appeal is condoned in the larger interest of justice in light of Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC).

4.

Coming to the assessee/appellant sole substantive grievance raised herein, it transpires that it is aggrieved against the learned lower authorities’ action holding it as not eligible to claim section 11 exemption since having filed Form 10B than the correct one i.e. Form 10BB, in the CPC’s section

5.

That being the case, learned counsel quotes Rule 17B of the Income Tax Rules that the assessee’s case is covered under clause (a)(III) thereunder since having applied a part of it’s income outside India during the relevant previous year than Form 10BB clause (b) thereupon which does not get attracted in the instant case.

6.

Faced with this situation and in the larger interest of justice, I hereby direct the learned assessing authority to verify the assessee’s application of income as to whether the same is covered under the foregoing rule, within three effective opportunities subject to a rider that the appellant shall plead and prove the case at it’s own risk and responsibility, in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.

More judgments on Section 11

All 7,190 judgments and leading authorities on Section 11 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →