← All Phrases

“Section 119(2)(b)”

Section References (mined)Section 119Section 119(2)(b)679 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 119(2)(b) is CIT v. G.M. Knitting Industries (P.) Ltd. (376 ITR 456), cited in 221 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 119(2)(b)

CIT v. G.M. Knitting Industries (P.) Ltd.
376 ITR 456 · 2015 · Supreme Court
221
citing judgments

The requirement to file a certificate or form (e.g., Form 10CCB, 10-IC) along with the return of income for claiming a deduction (e.g., under sections 80-IB, 115BAA) is directory regarding its timing. Such a deduction is allowable if the requisite form is filed before the final order of assessment, as procedural requirements should not override substantive benefits.

CIT v. Gujarat Oil & Allied Industries
201 ITR 325 · 1993 · High Court
195
citing judgments

The requirement to file an audit report along with the income tax return, as specified in provisions like Section 80J(6A) or 80-IA(7), is directory and not mandatory. Substantial compliance is achieved if the audit report is submitted at any time before the assessment is framed or completed, and benefits should not be denied merely due to a delay in furnishing it.

PCIT v. Wipro Ltd.
140 Taxmann.com 223 · 2022 · Supreme Court
192
citing judgments

Exemption provisions under Chapter III, such as Section 10B(8), must be interpreted strictly, and any claim for such exemptions must be made in the return of income. The principles governing Chapter III (incomes not forming part of total income) differ from those for Chapter VIA (deductions in computing total income).

CIT v. Contimeters Electricals (P.) Ltd.
317 ITR 249 · 2009 · High Court
140
citing judgments

The requirement to file an audit report along with the return of income under section 80-IA(7) and similar provisions is directory, not mandatory. Such a report suffices if filed at any time before the assessment is framed.

Sarvodaya Charitable Trust v. ITO (Exemption)
125 Taxmann.com 75 · 2021 · High Court
129
citing judgments

The filing of Form 10B for claiming exemption under sections 11 and 12 is directory, not mandatory. A delay in filing Form 10B can be condoned, and exemption cannot be denied solely on this ground if the assessee satisfies other conditions and shows sufficient cause.

CIT v. Shivanand Electronics
209 ITR 63 · 1994 · High Court
100
citing judgments

The requirement to file an audit report along with the return of income for claiming specified deductions, such as under Section 80J or 80-IA, is directory and not mandatory. Such an audit report can be filed at any time before the assessment is framed or completed under Section 143(1).

Duggal & Co. v. CIT
220 ITR 456 · 1996 · High Court
84
citing judgments

An assessment order becomes erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue under Section 263 if the Assessing Officer fails to conduct a proper inquiry or investigation, even if the return appears prima facie correct. The Income-tax Officer has a duty to investigate and cannot remain passive.

AA520 Veerappampalayam Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
138 Taxmann.com 571 · 2022 · High Court
78
citing judgments

The Centralized Processing Centre (CPC) can deny deductions claimed under Chapter VI-A, such as Section 80P, during the processing of a return under Section 143(1) if conditions for claiming such deductions, including filing the return by the due date as per Section 80AC, are not met.

Judgments citing Section 119(2)(b)

Indira Gandhi Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Bhubaneswar vs. ITO, Exemption Ward, Bhubaneswar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 509/CTK/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack16 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Income Tax Officer, Exemption Indira Gandhi Institute Of Ward, Bhubaneswar, Pharmaceutical Sciences Pratyaksha Kar Bhawan, Third N-4/208 Nayapalli, Irc Village, Floor, Regional Telecom Trg Vs. Khorda, Odisha-751015 Centre, Vss Nagar Road, Bhubaneswar-751007 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaati7724B Assessee By : Shri Kc Jena, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, Dr Date Of Hearing: 16.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.07.2025

For Appellant: Shri KC Jena, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty
Section 11Section 119(2)Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 143(1)

other hand, Id. Departmental Representative submits that the assessee ought to have filed the condonation petition before the revenue authorities under section 119(2)(b) of the Act as directed by the CBDT vide Circular No 16/2024 dated 18.11.2024. The assessee has a remedy to approach the authorities under section

Shevaroys Viruthambal Charitable Trust, Salem vs. ITO, Exemption Ward, Salem

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

ITA 1066/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1066/Chny/2025 िनधा9रण वष9 /Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shevaroys Viruthambal Charitable The Income Tax Officer, Trust, Vs. Exemptions Ward, 1, Hospital Road Yercaud, Salem. Salem – 636 601. [Pan: Aaats 8481R]

For Appellant: None
Section 11Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 144

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी एबी टी. वक", "ाियक

General Education Trust, Dadar Mumbai vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC Bengalaru, Bangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 6609/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Assessee’s Counsel letter dated 14/07/2025For Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT, D/R
Section 119(2)(b)

| आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "ायपीठ, मुंबई | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON

General Education Institute, Dadar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax CPC, Bengalaru

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 6599/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Assessee’s Counsel letter dated 14/07/2025For Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT, D/R
Section 119(2)(b)

| आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "ायपीठ, मुंबई | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON

Lalbagh Christian Educational Society, Lucknow vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Lucknow

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 104/LKW/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow10 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudharyआयकर अपील सं/ Ita No.104/Lkw/2025 ननिाारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2022-23 Lalbagh Christian Educational V. The Commissioner Of Society Income Tax (Exemption) Lal Bagh, Lucknow-226001. 5Th Floor, Tc-46, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Next To Lohia Hospital, Indra Nagar, Luckow-226010. Pan:Aaatl2080P अपीलार्थी/(Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी/(Respondent) अपीलार्थी कक और से/Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Adv प्रत्यर्थी कक और से /Respondent By: Shri Amit Kumar, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई कक तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 07 07 2025 घोर्णा कक तारीख/ Date Of 10 07 2025 Pronouncement: O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Amit Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 119(2)(b)

appeal of the assessee overlooking the issue of condonation of delay caused in filing Form No. 10B, such delay being condonable as per section 119(2)(b), petition for which is pending adjudication before the CIT(Exemptions), the order passed by the CIT(A) be set aside. 2. Because

Gudhi Sujatha, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-9(4), Chennai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 375/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:375/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Gudhi Sujatha, Income Tax Officer, New No.372, Old No.197, Vs. Non Corporate Ward – 9(4), Triplicane High Road, Chennai. Triplicane, Chennai – 600 005. [Pan:Arjps-6830-N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. T. Vasudevan, Advocate. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. P. Krishna Kumar, J.C.I.T.

For Appellant: Shri. T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. P. Krishna Kumar, J.C.I.T
Section 119(2)(b)Section 144Section 147Section 69

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एस एस िव"ने

Govindasamy Bharathiraja, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-4(2), Chennai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 258/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.258/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. Mr. Govindasamy Bharathiraja, The Ito, Old 4, New 6, Balaji Colony, Non-Corporate Ward-4(2), 3Rd Cross Street, Velachery, Chennai. Chennai-600 042. [Pan: Albpb 2971 K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143Section 144Section 69Section 69A

with law. The statute does not indicate vesting a jurisdiction in the Board to issue instructions in excess of what is stated in section 119(2)(b). It is wellsettled that instructions/circulars/guidelines are binding to the extent they are not inconsistent with the provisions

Suvarna Arogya Suraksha Trust, Bengaluru vs. ACIT, Exemptions Circle - 1, Bangalore

ITA 947/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Deepak, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL

Indian Red Cross Society, Bathinda vs. DCIT, (E), C-1, Chandigarh

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 602/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 602/Chd/2023 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Indian Red Cross Society बनाम The DCIT(Exemptions) Circle-1, Chandigarh Red Cross Bhawan, Civil Lines, Bathinda-151001, Punjab स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAATI4900K अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee by : राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hear

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 11Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 154Section 250

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च"ीगढ़ "ायपीठ “ए” , च"ीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “A”, CHANDIGARH HEARING

Dunigram Jana Kalyan Samity, Birbhum vs. DCIT/CPC, Bengalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 960/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Jul 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri George Mathandunigram Jana Kalyan Samity Vs Dcit/Cpc, Bangalore Margram, Birbhum, W.B. Pan No. :Aaaad 3235 B (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sumit Ghosh, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Mrinmay Basak, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 07/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 07/07/2025

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Ghosh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Mrinmay Basak, Sr. DR
Section 119Section 119(2)(b)Section 154Section 246A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण,“एस.एम.सी” न्यायपीठ, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, KOLKATA श्री जाजज माथन

Indravati Devi Bagrodia Charitable Trust, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 1.1, Exemption, Kolkata

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 491/KOL/2025[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Jul 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: The Itat The Grounds Are Extracted For Reference: “1. For That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Ao Was Wrong And

Section 11Section 143(1)Section 250

case took note of the latter circular issued by the Board in Circular No. 16 of 2022 dated 19- 07-2022 issued under Section 119(2)(b) by which the powers delegated to the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax/Commissioner of Income Tax to condone the delay in filing Form

Mangal Tirth Estate Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward-4(1), Chennai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 30/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:30/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Mangal Tirth Estate Ltd., Income Tax Officer, 769, Spencer Plaza, Anna Salai, Vs. Corporate Ward- 4(1), Mount Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 002. [Pan:Aaacm-4614-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. N. V. Balaji, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Anitha, Addl. C.I.T. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 14.05.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 07.07.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Filed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeal, Addl/ Jcit (A)-4, Hyderabad, For The Assessment Year 2020-21, Vide Order Dated 07.11.2024. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Company Filed Its Return Of Income For The A.Y.2020-21 On 17.11.2020 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.11,20,57,920/-. The Return Of Income Was Processed By The Ao, Cpc, Bangalore On 29.12.2021 & Raised A Demand Of Rs.93,79,350/- By Denying The Beneficial Tax Rate As Per Section 115Baa Of The Act & By Applying The Tax Rate Of 30%.

For Appellant: Shri. N. V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl. C.I.T
Section 115BSection 119(2)(b)Section 154

enquiry was directed towards whether there is any justification for the delay in filing the Form 10-IC. The need to invoke Section 119(2)(b) of the Act, itself would arise only if there is a delay and the enquiry ought to be whether that delay ... deal with the same on merit. The facts narrated supra leaves no room for doubt that the rejection of the petition under Section 119(2)(b) to permit the petitioner to file Form 10-IC in support of its exercise of option under Section 115BAA of the Act would cause

M/S. Ooruni Foundation, Chennai vs. CIT, Exemptions, Chennai

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

ITA 688/CHNY/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Jul 2025

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr.S. Prince Simon, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)(iii)

Chairman, Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), Ministry of Finance, Delhi. Respected Sir/Madam, Sub: Petition for condonation of delay under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 Delay in filing Form 10AB for registration under Section 12AA - Reg. Ref: PAN-AAAT05611R As advised by my client

Manoj Madhukar Gajarlawar, Kanchipuram vs. ACIT, Ncc-22(1), Tambaram

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1030/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr.Girish Sonthlia, AdvocateFor Respondent: DR is on leave
Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 90

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी एबी टी. वक", "ाियक

Udaan Sewa Samiti, Kanpur Nagar vs. CPC Banglore, Kanpur

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 150/LKW/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow03 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2020-21 Udaan Seva Samiti V. The Cpc 250/4, Juhi Lal Colony Bangalore Kanpur Nagar Uttar Pradesh Tan/Pan:Aaaau7543F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Samrat Chandra, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 23.11.2023, Passed By The Addl/Jcit(A)-2, Mumbai For Assessment Year 2019-20. 3.1 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Society Registered Under Section 12Aa Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’). The Assessee-Society Filed Its Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration Under Section 139(1) On 26.01.2021, Declaring Total Income At Nil. The Assessee-Society Had Claimed Exemption Of Rs.12,97,442/- Relating To The Amount Applied For Charitable & Religious Purposes During The Previous Year. The Central Processing Centre (Cpc) Processed The Return Under Section 143(1) Of The Act

For Appellant: Shri Samrat Chandra, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R
Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)

belatedly, only CBDT had the power to condone the delay on application being made by the assessee in terms of the provisions of section 119(2)(b) of the Act and, therefore, he, as the Ld. First Appellate Authority, was not entrusted with the power for condoning the delay ... Ahmedabad ITAT), wherein, vide order dated 22.07.2022, the ITAT Ahmedabad Bench had held that the Commissioner (Appeals) did not have any power under section 119(2)(b) of the Act to condone the delay in filing Form 10B and, therefore, dismissal of assessee’s appeal, for failure to have filed

Thaligai Primary Co Op Credit Society Ltd, Namakkal vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward II

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

ITA 542/CHNY/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Jul 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri George George K

For Appellant: Shri Anand, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Samantha Mullamudi
Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 80ASection 80P

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ (एस एम सी), "यायपीठ,चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ (SMC) BENCH, CHENNAI

Palam Rural Centre, Tiruppur vs. ACIT, Exemptions, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the Stay Application filed by the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 1560/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1560/Chny/2025 & S.A.No.51Chny/2025 [Arising In Ita No.: 1560/Chny/2025] िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2018-19 Palam Rural Centre, The Asst. Commissioner Of Pethampalayam, Vs. Income Tax (Exemptions), Veerapandi S.O., Coimbatore. Tiruppur – 641 605. [Pan: Aaatp-2929-F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Edser Raj, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Sita Krishnamoorthy, J.C.I.T.

For Appellant: Shri. Edser Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sita Krishnamoorthy, J.C.I.T
Section 11Section 12ASection 139

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी जॉज" जॉज" के, उपा

Sarswati Bal Kalyan Samiti, Waidhan vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemption, Jabalpur

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

ITA 45/JAB/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur30 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri, Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2018-19 M/S Sarswati Bal Kalyan V. Income Tax Officer, Samiti Mandla Ward, Mandla Waidhan Distt – Singrauli (Mp)- Central Revenue Annexe 486886. Building, Jabalpur- 482001. Pan:Aadas7349Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Dr. Hemant S. Modh, Adv Respondent By: Shri Alok Bhura , Sr. (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 23 05 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 06 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Dr. Hemant S. Modh, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Alok Bhura , Sr. (DR)
Section 119(2)(b)Section 263Section 69A

filing of appeal, the appellant had filed a petition for condonation of delay, The same has been taken on record and perused. 5.3 Section 119(2)(b) o the Act provides for condonation of delay of any application or claims filed under the Act. The CBDT will authorize income

Prathmik Krishi Sakh Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, Jerath vs. Incometax Officer Ward, Narsinghpur

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

ITA 151/JAB/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur30 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri, Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2019-20 Prathmik Krishi Sakh V. Ito Ward Narsinghpur Sahakari Samiti Maryadit Income Tax Office, Jerath Trimurti Nagar, Housing Gram Jerath, Pathariya, Board Colony, Damoh-470661. Narsinghpur-487001. Pan:Aabap7893E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Sapan Usrethe, Adv Respondent By: Shri Alok Bhura, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing: 20 05 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 06 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Sapan Usrethe, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Alok Bhura, Sr DR
Section 119(2)(b)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151(1)Section 250Section 80P

course of assessment proceeding appellant have duly submitted that in view of circular the appellant is entitled for exemption and application under section 119(2)(b) is pending.” 2. The facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer received information through ITBA software that the assessee had made cash

Pratibha Jain, Indore vs. Deputy Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

Appeal is dismissed in /imine

ITA 921/IND/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Jun 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 80Section 8B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PARESH M. JOSHI