← 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)

Annai Velankanni Educational Trust, Tirunelveli vs. ITO, Exemption Ward, Tirunelveli, Triunelveli

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

ITA 2185/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2185/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Annai Velankanni Educational Trust, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 262A, Thiruchendur Road, Exemptions Ward, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli. Palayamkottai H.O. Tirunelveli 627 002. [Pan:Aaeta3416A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. Raghupathy, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 19.12.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.12.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 12.02.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 129 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Explaining Reasons

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Raghupathy, Addl. CIT
Section 11Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 144

condoned the delay in filing audit report in Form 10B as well as delay in filing return of income vide his order under section 119(2)(b) of the Act dated 08.10.2020 & 26.11.2024 respectively and placed a copy of the same on record. He further submits that the assessee ... excess of income over expenditure was disallowed. We have perused the orders of the ld. CIT(E) passed under section 119(2)(b) of the Act dated 08.10.2020 in condoning the delay in filing audit report in Form 10B as well as condoning the delay filing the return of income

Loveen Babu Vuppala, Secunderabad vs. ITO., Ward-9(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1121/HYD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Dec 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1121/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2021-22) Loveen Babu Vuppala Vs. Income Tax Officer Secunderabad Ward-9(1) [Pan : Alppv1796E] Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Ms.Aluru V Sai Sudha, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Shri R.Kumaran, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 19/12/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 30/12/2024 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30.08.2024 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Ld.Cit(A)], Kolkata, Pertaining To A.Y.2021-22 On The Following Grounds : 1. The Cit(A) Erred In Not Condoning The Delay & Not Admitting The Appeal 2. The Cit(A) Erred In Holding That There Was No Sufficient Cause For Condoning The Delay In Filing The Appeal

For Appellant: Ms.Aluru V Sai Sudha, ARFor Respondent: : Shri R.Kumaran, DR
Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 234A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘B’ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri Manjunatha G., Accountant

Delhi Maharashtriya Educational and Cultural Society, New Delhi vs. CIT(Exemption), New Delhi

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

ITA 3195/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmandelhi Maharashtriya Educational & Vs. Cit (Exemption), Cultural Society, New Delhi. Ram Bagh, Walchand Palace, Paharganj, New Delhi – 110 055. (Pan : Aaatd5737F) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Abhishek Jain, Ca Revenue By : Shri Surender Pal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.11.2024 Date Of Order : 23.12.2024 Order Per S.Rifaur Rahman,Am: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Exemption), Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To ‘Ld. Cit (E)’) Dated 14.06.2024 For Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. At The Outset, Ld. Ar For The Assessee Submitted That The Ld. Cit (E) Rejected The Petition/Application Filed For Condonation Of Delay U/S 119(2)(B) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’) In Filing Of Form 10B For The Ay 2018-19. He Submitted That There Was Only A Delay

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, CIT DR
Section 119(2)(b)

compliance.” 3. Ld. AR for the assessee further contended that vide circular No.2/2020 dated 03.01.2020, CBDT in exercise of the powers conferred under section 119(2)(b) of the Act, authorised the Commissioners to admit the belated applications of condonation of delay of 365 days for the assessment years

Society for Community Intervention & Research, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 1(1), Exemption, Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2087/KOL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Dec 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.2087/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Society For Community Intervention & Research…....Appellant 2/2, Tiljala Road, Near No.2 Rail Gate, Park Circus Station, Kol-700046. [Pan: Aaatc4285B] Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1), Exemption, Kolkata…..…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Akkal Dudhewala, Ar & Vidhi Ladia, Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Susanta Saha & Shri Rajat Datta, Sr. Drs, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 05, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 16, 2024 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 14.08.2024 Of The Cit(Appeals), Addl/Jcit(A)-1, Hyderabad [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That An Intimation Order U/S 143(1) Of The Act Dated 27.03.2019 Was Passed By The Cpc, Bengaluru Denying Exemption U/S 11 To The Assessee On The Ground Of Non-Filing Form 10B In Time Or Before The Filing Of The Return Of Income.

Section 11Section 119(2)(b)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 249(2)(b)Section 250

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH KOLKATA Before Shri Sonjoy