← 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)

Shree Channamaleshwara Credit C-Operative Society Ltd., Kalaburagi vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Gulbarga

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

ITA 203/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Ms.Lakshmi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Ganesh R.Gale, Standing Counsel
Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80ASection 80P

which was introduced w.e.f. 01.04.2018), assessee cannot be allowed deduction under section 80P of the Act. However, assessee has filed application under section 119(2)(b) of the Act for condonation of delay in filing the return of income and the same is pending consideration by the relevant authority ... which was introduced w.e.f. 01.04.2018), assessee cannot be allowed deduction under section 80P of the Act. However, assessee has filed application under section 119(2)(b) of the Act before the CCIT, Bangalore, for condonation of delay in filing the return of income. In this context, learned AR had relied

DCIT, Circle-7(1), Delhi vs. Eicher Motors Limited, Delhi

ITA 3721/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 35

considered by assessing officer ('AO')/CIT(A) and that the appellant ought to have taken recourse of the specific remedy available under section 119(2)(b) of the Act. 03. That the learned CIT(A) grossly erred on facts and in law in holding that the AO was right ... judicial precedents relied upon by the appellant holding the same to be "per- incuriam" having been passed without considering the provisions under section 119(2)(b) of the Act. 06. That the CIT(A) grossly erred on facts and in law in not allowing deduction of ESOP expenditure, even though

Eicher Motors Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle 7(1) New Delhi, New Delhi

ITA 3525/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 35

considered by assessing officer ('AO')/CIT(A) and that the appellant ought to have taken recourse of the specific remedy available under section 119(2)(b) of the Act. 03. That the learned CIT(A) grossly erred on facts and in law in holding that the AO was right ... judicial precedents relied upon by the appellant holding the same to be "per- incuriam" having been passed without considering the provisions under section 119(2)(b) of the Act. 06. That the CIT(A) grossly erred on facts and in law in not allowing deduction of ESOP expenditure, even though

Sindhu Seva Mandal Dharmarth Trust, Ujjain vs. CIT Exemption, Bhopal

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 486/IND/2023[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Indore14 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2017-18 Sindhu Sewa Mandal Cit(Exemption ) Dharmarth Trust, Bhopal 2, Ramkrishna Colony, बनाम/Vs. Dewas Road, Ujjain. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Aaats8149J Assessee By Shri Rajendra Sodani, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 14.03.2024

Section 119(2)(b)Section 253(1)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY

Sou Jayee Mohite Sp Mandal, Satara vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Pune

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 1378/PUN/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Mar 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1378/Pun/2023 Assessment Year : 2020-21 Sou Jayee Mohite Sp Mandal, Vs. Cit (Exemption), Rethare Bk,Tal Karad, Pune Dist. Satara – 415108 Maharashtra Pan : Aadts7345B Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Prasanna Joshi
Section 11(1)(d)Section 119(2)(b)Section 143(1)Section 253(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PARTHA

Sri Praja Co-Operative Credit Society Limited, Bangalore vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 28/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Mar 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2020-21 M/S. Sri Praja Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd., Vs. Ito, No.1, 3Rd Main Road, Nagappa Block, Ward – 2(2)(1), Sriramapura, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 021. Pan : Aaajs 1557 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Srinivas Bharath, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Subramanian S, Addl. Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 06.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.03.2024

For Appellant: Shri. Srinivas Bharath, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

which was introduced w.e.f. 01.04.2018), assessee cannot be allowed deduction under section 80P of the Act. However, assessee has filed application under section 119(2)(b) of the Act for condonation of delay in filing the return of income and the same is pending consideration by the CBDT. In this ... which was introduced w.e.f. 01.04.2018), assessee cannot be allowed deduction under section 80P of the Act. However, assessee has filed application under section 119(2)(b) of the Act before the CCIT, Bangalore, for condonation of delay in filing the return of income. In this context, learned AR had relied

Vadodara Urban Development Authority, Vadodara vs. The ACIT, Circle-2 (Exemp), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 344/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(2)Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 22

filing Form 10, which was allowed by the Commissioner Income Tax vide order dated 26.12.2019 correctly, laying emphasis that the mandate of Section 119(2)(b) of the Act is to mitigate the genuine hardship of assessee in certain circumstances and authorization to the Commissioners to admit the belated Form

Vadodara Urban Development Authority, Vadodara vs. The ACIT, Circle-2 (Exemp), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 343/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(2)Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 22

filing Form 10, which was allowed by the Commissioner Income Tax vide order dated 26.12.2019 correctly, laying emphasis that the mandate of Section 119(2)(b) of the Act is to mitigate the genuine hardship of assessee in certain circumstances and authorization to the Commissioners to admit the belated Form

Vadodara Urban Development Authority, Vadodara vs. The ACIT, Circle-2 (Exemp), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 342/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(2)Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 22

filing Form 10, which was allowed by the Commissioner Income Tax vide order dated 26.12.2019 correctly, laying emphasis that the mandate of Section 119(2)(b) of the Act is to mitigate the genuine hardship of assessee in certain circumstances and authorization to the Commissioners to admit the belated Form

Jt.CIT(E), Circle-2 Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad vs. Vadodara Urban Development Authority, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 335/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(2)Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 22

filing Form 10, which was allowed by the Commissioner Income Tax vide order dated 26.12.2019 correctly, laying emphasis that the mandate of Section 119(2)(b) of the Act is to mitigate the genuine hardship of assessee in certain circumstances and authorization to the Commissioners to admit the belated Form

Jt.CIT(E), Circle -2 Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad vs. Vadodara Urban Development Authority, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 334/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(2)Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 22

filing Form 10, which was allowed by the Commissioner Income Tax vide order dated 26.12.2019 correctly, laying emphasis that the mandate of Section 119(2)(b) of the Act is to mitigate the genuine hardship of assessee in certain circumstances and authorization to the Commissioners to admit the belated Form

Jt.CIT(Exemption)Circl-2 Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad vs. Vadodara Urban Development Authority, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 333/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(2)Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 22

filing Form 10, which was allowed by the Commissioner Income Tax vide order dated 26.12.2019 correctly, laying emphasis that the mandate of Section 119(2)(b) of the Act is to mitigate the genuine hardship of assessee in certain circumstances and authorization to the Commissioners to admit the belated Form

Anand Bhalchandra Kulkarni, Navi Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune-1, Pune

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are rejected as unadmitted being non-maintainable

ITA 1357/PUN/2023[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi () Ita Nos. 1352 To 1357/Pun/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 To 2022-23 Anand Bhalchandra Kulkarni, Pr. Cit, Pune-1, G/701 Tulip Afnhb Camp Pmt Building, Swargate, Jalvvayu Vishar Phase-1, Plot-20, Vs. Pune-411037. Sec 20, Kharghar-410210. Pan No. Aanpk 7550 Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Lokesh K Gandhi (ThroughFor Respondent: Mr. Mirtyunjay Barnwal (Through
Section 115VSection 119Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 132Section 132ASection 143Section 147Section 153ASection 153C

condonation of delay in filing the revised return of income for assessment years 2017-18 to 2022-23 under the provisions of section 119(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). The Ld. PCIT vide impugned order rejected such request for condoning the delay ... relevant material on record. At the outset, we find that this order has been passed by the Ld. PCIT in terms of section 119(2)(b) of the Act. The orders, against which appeals could be preferred before the ITAT, have been specified in section

Anand Bhalchandra Kulkarni, Navi Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune-1, Pune

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are rejected as unadmitted being non-maintainable

ITA 1356/PUN/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi () Ita Nos. 1352 To 1357/Pun/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 To 2022-23 Anand Bhalchandra Kulkarni, Pr. Cit, Pune-1, G/701 Tulip Afnhb Camp Pmt Building, Swargate, Jalvvayu Vishar Phase-1, Plot-20, Vs. Pune-411037. Sec 20, Kharghar-410210. Pan No. Aanpk 7550 Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Lokesh K Gandhi (ThroughFor Respondent: Mr. Mirtyunjay Barnwal (Through
Section 115VSection 119Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 132Section 132ASection 143Section 147Section 153ASection 153C

condonation of delay in filing the revised return of income for assessment years 2017-18 to 2022-23 under the provisions of section 119(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). The Ld. PCIT vide impugned order rejected such request for condoning the delay ... relevant material on record. At the outset, we find that this order has been passed by the Ld. PCIT in terms of section 119(2)(b) of the Act. The orders, against which appeals could be preferred before the ITAT, have been specified in section

Anand Bhalchandra Kulkarni, Navi Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune-1, Pune

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are rejected as unadmitted being non-maintainable

ITA 1355/PUN/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi () Ita Nos. 1352 To 1357/Pun/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 To 2022-23 Anand Bhalchandra Kulkarni, Pr. Cit, Pune-1, G/701 Tulip Afnhb Camp Pmt Building, Swargate, Jalvvayu Vishar Phase-1, Plot-20, Vs. Pune-411037. Sec 20, Kharghar-410210. Pan No. Aanpk 7550 Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Lokesh K Gandhi (ThroughFor Respondent: Mr. Mirtyunjay Barnwal (Through
Section 115VSection 119Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 132Section 132ASection 143Section 147Section 153ASection 153C

condonation of delay in filing the revised return of income for assessment years 2017-18 to 2022-23 under the provisions of section 119(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). The Ld. PCIT vide impugned order rejected such request for condoning the delay ... relevant material on record. At the outset, we find that this order has been passed by the Ld. PCIT in terms of section 119(2)(b) of the Act. The orders, against which appeals could be preferred before the ITAT, have been specified in section

Anand Bhalchandra Kulkarni, Navi Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune-1, Pune

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are rejected as unadmitted being non-maintainable

ITA 1354/PUN/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi () Ita Nos. 1352 To 1357/Pun/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 To 2022-23 Anand Bhalchandra Kulkarni, Pr. Cit, Pune-1, G/701 Tulip Afnhb Camp Pmt Building, Swargate, Jalvvayu Vishar Phase-1, Plot-20, Vs. Pune-411037. Sec 20, Kharghar-410210. Pan No. Aanpk 7550 Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Lokesh K Gandhi (ThroughFor Respondent: Mr. Mirtyunjay Barnwal (Through
Section 115VSection 119Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 132Section 132ASection 143Section 147Section 153ASection 153C

condonation of delay in filing the revised return of income for assessment years 2017-18 to 2022-23 under the provisions of section 119(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). The Ld. PCIT vide impugned order rejected such request for condoning the delay ... relevant material on record. At the outset, we find that this order has been passed by the Ld. PCIT in terms of section 119(2)(b) of the Act. The orders, against which appeals could be preferred before the ITAT, have been specified in section

Anand Bhalchandra Kulkarni, Navi Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune-1, Pune

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are rejected as unadmitted being non-maintainable

ITA 1353/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi () Ita Nos. 1352 To 1357/Pun/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 To 2022-23 Anand Bhalchandra Kulkarni, Pr. Cit, Pune-1, G/701 Tulip Afnhb Camp Pmt Building, Swargate, Jalvvayu Vishar Phase-1, Plot-20, Vs. Pune-411037. Sec 20, Kharghar-410210. Pan No. Aanpk 7550 Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Lokesh K Gandhi (ThroughFor Respondent: Mr. Mirtyunjay Barnwal (Through
Section 115VSection 119Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 132Section 132ASection 143Section 147Section 153ASection 153C

condonation of delay in filing the revised return of income for assessment years 2017-18 to 2022-23 under the provisions of section 119(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). The Ld. PCIT vide impugned order rejected such request for condoning the delay ... relevant material on record. At the outset, we find that this order has been passed by the Ld. PCIT in terms of section 119(2)(b) of the Act. The orders, against which appeals could be preferred before the ITAT, have been specified in section

Anand Bhalchandra Kulkarni, Navi Mumbai vs. Pricipal Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune-1, Pune

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are rejected as unadmitted being non-maintainable

ITA 1352/PUN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi () Ita Nos. 1352 To 1357/Pun/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 To 2022-23 Anand Bhalchandra Kulkarni, Pr. Cit, Pune-1, G/701 Tulip Afnhb Camp Pmt Building, Swargate, Jalvvayu Vishar Phase-1, Plot-20, Vs. Pune-411037. Sec 20, Kharghar-410210. Pan No. Aanpk 7550 Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Lokesh K Gandhi (ThroughFor Respondent: Mr. Mirtyunjay Barnwal (Through
Section 115VSection 119Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 132Section 132ASection 143Section 147Section 153ASection 153C

condonation of delay in filing the revised return of income for assessment years 2017-18 to 2022-23 under the provisions of section 119(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). The Ld. PCIT vide impugned order rejected such request for condoning the delay ... relevant material on record. At the outset, we find that this order has been passed by the Ld. PCIT in terms of section 119(2)(b) of the Act. The orders, against which appeals could be preferred before the ITAT, have been specified in section

Parth Pragati Mandal, Sabarkantha vs. The ITO(Exemption), Palanpur

In the result, appeal preferred by the appellant is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 882/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 882/Ahd/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19) Parth Pragati Mandal The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ 19, Umiya Parivar Society, (Exemption) Vs. Valasana Road, Idar, Palanpur Sabarkantha – 383430, Gujarat "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabtp4353N (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Tej Shah, A.R. अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri C S Sharma, Sr. Dr 21/02/2024 Date Of Hearing 23/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy - Jm: The Instant Appeal Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 05.09.2023 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Arising Out Of The Order Dated 13.09.2021 Passed By The Ao, Nfac, Delhi, Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’), Raising A Demand Of Rs.2,30,409/- For Assessment Year 2018-19, Whereby & Whereunder The Appeal Filed By The

For Respondent: Shri C S Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 80G(5)

apply before the concerned authority being the Board under ITA No. 882/Ahd/2023 [Parth Pragati Mandal vs. ITO(E)] A.Y.– 2018-19 - 6 – Section 119(2)(b) of the Act for approval to file ITR-7 within 15 days from the date of passing of this order

S 279 Kottathupatti Pacs Limited, Salem vs. ITO, Ward-1(6), Salem

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1631/CHNY/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Feb 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, IRS, JCIT
Section 119Section 119(2)(b)Section 143(1)Section 80P(2)

Intimation under Section 143(1) of the Act dated 02/11/2022 without waiting for the outcome of the Delay Condonation Petition filed under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act before the CBDT on 25/04/2022, despite mentioning this fact in the Impugned Order’’. I have heard the rival contention and perused