← 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)

Dhareshwar Seva Sahakari Mandali Ltd., Village: - Dhareshwar, Taluka: - Rajula, Dist. Amreli vs. The DCIT (CPC), Bangalore

In the result, all the 4 appeals are allowed

ITA 197/RJT/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot10 Feb 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri D.M. Rindani, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr. DR &
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(1)(c)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(2)(e)

only remedy to the solution lies in the machinery provisions of the Act rather than seeking legal remedy. Such provisions are found in section 119(2)(b) which enables an assessee to approach the Board for seeking relief in such matters. The provisions of section 119(2)(b) are reproduced ... beyond the due date as provided in Section 139(1) of the Act. As discussed earlier the remedy to the issue lies in section 119(2)(b). The current provisions of section 143(1)(a) allows an Assessing Officer to make prima-facie adjustment of disallowance of deduction claimed

Ambaradi Seva Sahkari Mandali Ltd., Ambaradi, Dist. Amreli vs. The DCIT(CPC), Bangaluru, Bengaluru

In the result, all the 4 appeals are allowed

ITA 186/RJT/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot10 Feb 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri D.M. Rindani, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr. DR &
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(1)(c)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(2)(e)

only remedy to the solution lies in the machinery provisions of the Act rather than seeking legal remedy. Such provisions are found in section 119(2)(b) which enables an assessee to approach the Board for seeking relief in such matters. The provisions of section 119(2)(b) are reproduced ... beyond the due date as provided in Section 139(1) of the Act. As discussed earlier the remedy to the issue lies in section 119(2)(b). The current provisions of section 143(1)(a) allows an Assessing Officer to make prima-facie adjustment of disallowance of deduction claimed

DCIT, Hisar vs. M/S Synergy Waste Management Pvt. Ltd., Hisar

In the result, all the five captioned appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5704/DEL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Ramesh Goyal, CA &For Respondent: Ms Kajal Singh, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 119Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 170Section 170(1)Section 44ASection 801ASection 80I

Assessing Officer disregarded revised returns on ground that same were filed late and no condonation of delay had been obtained in accordance with section 119(2)(b) - However, it was found that provisions of section 119(2)(b) would not be applicable where an assessee had restructured his business

DCIT, Hisar vs. M/S Synergy Waste Management Pvt. Ltd., Hisar

In the result, all the five captioned appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5703/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Ramesh Goyal, CA &For Respondent: Ms Kajal Singh, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 119Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 170Section 170(1)Section 44ASection 801ASection 80I

Assessing Officer disregarded revised returns on ground that same were filed late and no condonation of delay had been obtained in accordance with section 119(2)(b) - However, it was found that provisions of section 119(2)(b) would not be applicable where an assessee had restructured his business

DCIT, Hisar vs. M/S Synergy Waste Management Pvt. Ltd., Hisar

In the result, all the five captioned appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5702/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Ramesh Goyal, CA &For Respondent: Ms Kajal Singh, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 119Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 170Section 170(1)Section 44ASection 801ASection 80I

Assessing Officer disregarded revised returns on ground that same were filed late and no condonation of delay had been obtained in accordance with section 119(2)(b) - However, it was found that provisions of section 119(2)(b) would not be applicable where an assessee had restructured his business

DCIT, Hisar vs. M/S Synergy Waste Management Pvt. Ltd., Hisar

In the result, all the five captioned appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5701/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Ramesh Goyal, CA &For Respondent: Ms Kajal Singh, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 119Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 170Section 170(1)Section 44ASection 801ASection 80I

Assessing Officer disregarded revised returns on ground that same were filed late and no condonation of delay had been obtained in accordance with section 119(2)(b) - However, it was found that provisions of section 119(2)(b) would not be applicable where an assessee had restructured his business

Tagore Shiksha Samiti, Jhunjhunu vs. ACIT, Circle (Exemption), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 425/JPR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jan 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.S. Shekhawat, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik, CIT &
Section 11Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 12A(1)(b)Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 154

stage either before the ITO or before the appellate authority 2.5 On the other hand, the ld. DR argued that the application under section 119(2)(b) of the Act was rejected by the CIT (Exemption) and subsequent to his order, an order u/s 154 of the Act was passed

Manuchukonda Sri Ram, Vizianagaram vs. Income Tax Office, Ward-2, Vizianagaram

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

ITA 178/VIZ/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam06 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.178/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Manchokonda Sri Ram Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.7-1-36, Ward-1 Manchukonda Vari Veedhi Vizianagaram Vizianagaram [Pan : Acnpr3037M] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Sankar Pandi, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 04.01.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06 .01.2023

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Pandi, DR
Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 139(4)Section 142Section 142(1)Section 69A

आयकरअपीलीयअधिकरण, धिशाखापटणम पीठ, धिशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM ‘SMC’ BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM श्री दुव्वूरु आर एल रेड्डी, न्याधयक

Shree Hari Ram Charitable Trust, Surat vs. ITO Exemption, Surat

In the result, the appeal of assessee is treated as dismissed being infructuous

ITA 248/SRT/2022[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Surat02 Jan 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Physical Hearing) Shree Hari Ram Charitable Trust, I.T.O.(Exemptions), 304, Meghdhanush Complex, Ward-Surat. Vs. Adajan Patia, Adajan Surat, Gujarat, India- 395009. Pan No. Aajts 1057 L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 10Section 11Section 11(1)(A)Section 12ASection 154Section 254(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI

Sree Gokulam Chit and Finance Co. Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. Dy. Commissioner Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Chennai

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

ITA 765/CHNY/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Dec 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri N Arjunraj, CA for Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.CIT
Section 1Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ,चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी महावीर "सह, उपा"य

Sri Kanchi Kamakoti Peetam Charitable Trust, Chennai vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 237/CHNY/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Dec 2022AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Shri G. Seetharaman, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. Marudhu Pandyan, CIT
Section 11Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,‘सी’ "यायपीठ,चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी महावीर "सह, उपा"य

M/S Redisolve Software P Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT Cor Circle 5 (1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in I

ITA 524/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 254/Chny/2016 & 521 To 524/Chny/2018 Assessment Years:2010-11, 2009-10, 10-11, 11-12, 12-13 M/S. Redisolve Software P. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 18, Cenotaph 1St Street, Alwarpet, Income Tax, Chennai 600 035. Corporate Circle 5(1)/5(2), [Pan:Aadcr3467N] Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjunraj C.A. For Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 22.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: The Appeal Filed By The Assessee In I.T.A. No. 254/Chny/2016 For The Assessment Year 2010-11 Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax –Chennai-5, Chennai Dated 12.03.2015 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short]. The Appeals Filed By The Assessee In I.T.A. Nos. 521, 522, 523 & 524/Chny/2018 Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 3, Chennai Dated

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjunraj C.A. for Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT
Section 10ASection 119(2)(b)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 263

submitted that so far as assessment year 2010- 11 is concerned, the CBDT has condoned the delay and passed an order under section 119(2)(b) of the Act dated 10.10.2022 and directing the Assessing Officer to allow the claim of deduction under section ... directed the Assessing Officer to disallow the claim of deduction under section 10A of the Act. Now the CBDT by order under section 119(2)(b) of the Act dated 10.10.2022 for the assessment year 2010- 11 condoned the delay and also clarified that the condonation of delay in filing

M/S Redisolve Software P Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT Cor Circle 5 (1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in I

ITA 523/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 254/Chny/2016 & 521 To 524/Chny/2018 Assessment Years:2010-11, 2009-10, 10-11, 11-12, 12-13 M/S. Redisolve Software P. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 18, Cenotaph 1St Street, Alwarpet, Income Tax, Chennai 600 035. Corporate Circle 5(1)/5(2), [Pan:Aadcr3467N] Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjunraj C.A. For Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 22.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: The Appeal Filed By The Assessee In I.T.A. No. 254/Chny/2016 For The Assessment Year 2010-11 Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax –Chennai-5, Chennai Dated 12.03.2015 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short]. The Appeals Filed By The Assessee In I.T.A. Nos. 521, 522, 523 & 524/Chny/2018 Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 3, Chennai Dated

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjunraj C.A. for Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT
Section 10ASection 119(2)(b)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 263

submitted that so far as assessment year 2010- 11 is concerned, the CBDT has condoned the delay and passed an order under section 119(2)(b) of the Act dated 10.10.2022 and directing the Assessing Officer to allow the claim of deduction under section ... directed the Assessing Officer to disallow the claim of deduction under section 10A of the Act. Now the CBDT by order under section 119(2)(b) of the Act dated 10.10.2022 for the assessment year 2010- 11 condoned the delay and also clarified that the condonation of delay in filing

M/S Redisolve Software P Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT Cor Circle 5 (1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in I

ITA 522/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 254/Chny/2016 & 521 To 524/Chny/2018 Assessment Years:2010-11, 2009-10, 10-11, 11-12, 12-13 M/S. Redisolve Software P. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 18, Cenotaph 1St Street, Alwarpet, Income Tax, Chennai 600 035. Corporate Circle 5(1)/5(2), [Pan:Aadcr3467N] Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjunraj C.A. For Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 22.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: The Appeal Filed By The Assessee In I.T.A. No. 254/Chny/2016 For The Assessment Year 2010-11 Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax –Chennai-5, Chennai Dated 12.03.2015 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short]. The Appeals Filed By The Assessee In I.T.A. Nos. 521, 522, 523 & 524/Chny/2018 Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 3, Chennai Dated

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjunraj C.A. for Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT
Section 10ASection 119(2)(b)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 263

submitted that so far as assessment year 2010- 11 is concerned, the CBDT has condoned the delay and passed an order under section 119(2)(b) of the Act dated 10.10.2022 and directing the Assessing Officer to allow the claim of deduction under section ... directed the Assessing Officer to disallow the claim of deduction under section 10A of the Act. Now the CBDT by order under section 119(2)(b) of the Act dated 10.10.2022 for the assessment year 2010- 11 condoned the delay and also clarified that the condonation of delay in filing

M/S Redisolve Software P Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT Cor Circle 5 (1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in I

ITA 521/CHNY/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 254/Chny/2016 & 521 To 524/Chny/2018 Assessment Years:2010-11, 2009-10, 10-11, 11-12, 12-13 M/S. Redisolve Software P. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 18, Cenotaph 1St Street, Alwarpet, Income Tax, Chennai 600 035. Corporate Circle 5(1)/5(2), [Pan:Aadcr3467N] Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjunraj C.A. For Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 22.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: The Appeal Filed By The Assessee In I.T.A. No. 254/Chny/2016 For The Assessment Year 2010-11 Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax –Chennai-5, Chennai Dated 12.03.2015 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short]. The Appeals Filed By The Assessee In I.T.A. Nos. 521, 522, 523 & 524/Chny/2018 Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 3, Chennai Dated

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjunraj C.A. for Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT
Section 10ASection 119(2)(b)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 263

submitted that so far as assessment year 2010- 11 is concerned, the CBDT has condoned the delay and passed an order under section 119(2)(b) of the Act dated 10.10.2022 and directing the Assessing Officer to allow the claim of deduction under section ... directed the Assessing Officer to disallow the claim of deduction under section 10A of the Act. Now the CBDT by order under section 119(2)(b) of the Act dated 10.10.2022 for the assessment year 2010- 11 condoned the delay and also clarified that the condonation of delay in filing

Redisolve Software P Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in I

ITA 254/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 254/Chny/2016 & 521 To 524/Chny/2018 Assessment Years:2010-11, 2009-10, 10-11, 11-12, 12-13 M/S. Redisolve Software P. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 18, Cenotaph 1St Street, Alwarpet, Income Tax, Chennai 600 035. Corporate Circle 5(1)/5(2), [Pan:Aadcr3467N] Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjunraj C.A. For Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 22.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: The Appeal Filed By The Assessee In I.T.A. No. 254/Chny/2016 For The Assessment Year 2010-11 Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax –Chennai-5, Chennai Dated 12.03.2015 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short]. The Appeals Filed By The Assessee In I.T.A. Nos. 521, 522, 523 & 524/Chny/2018 Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 3, Chennai Dated

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjunraj C.A. for Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT
Section 10ASection 119(2)(b)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 263

submitted that so far as assessment year 2010- 11 is concerned, the CBDT has condoned the delay and passed an order under section 119(2)(b) of the Act dated 10.10.2022 and directing the Assessing Officer to allow the claim of deduction under section ... directed the Assessing Officer to disallow the claim of deduction under section 10A of the Act. Now the CBDT by order under section 119(2)(b) of the Act dated 10.10.2022 for the assessment year 2010- 11 condoned the delay and also clarified that the condonation of delay in filing

Awaaz Foundation, Mumbai vs. ACIT Trust Circle/CPC, Mumbai

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

ITA 1924/MUM/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1924/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2020-21) Acit, Trust Circle/Cpc, Awaaz Foundation, Mtnl Building, Peddar C/O- Sumaira Abdulali, 3, बिधम/ Road, Mumbai-400 026 Reshma Apartment, 13 Pali Vs. Hill Road, Near Petit School, Bandra (W) Mumbai-400 050 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aabta8994Q (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri N. R. Agarwal, Ld. Ar प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Manoj Sinha, Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 03.10.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 30.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Impugned Order Dated 26.07.2022, Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi In Relation To Intimation U/S 143(1) For Ay 2020-21. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

For Appellant: Shri N. R. Agarwal, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Sinha, Ld. DR
Section 10Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 288

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JM & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM आयकरअपीलसं

Dy CIT CC-1(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Grasim Industries Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 41/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri. J.D Mistry, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anil Singh
Section 115OSection 115QSection 2

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ―G‖ BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM

Grasim Industries Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT, Central Circle-1(4), Mumbai

ITA 1935/MUM/2020[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri. J.D Mistry, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anil Singh
Section 115OSection 115QSection 2

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ―G‖ BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM

Xprize Foundation, Mumbai vs. Additional /Joint/Deputy/ACIT/Income Tax Officer, National E-Assessment Centre, Mumbai

In the result, the present appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2187/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2022AY 2018-19
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R.N. D‟souza
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(3)

view of the representations received by CBDT seeking condonation of delay in filing Form No. 9A and Form No. 10 under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act, Circular No.3 of 2020 [F.NO. 197/55/2018- ITA-I], dated 03.01.2020 was issued by CBDT whereby the Commissioners of Income-tax were authorized ... with the view to prevent hardship to the assessee ITA. No. 2187/Mum/2022 Assessment Year: 2018-19 and in exercise of powers conferred under section 119(2)(b) of the Act, the CBDT has decided that where the application for condonation of delay in filing Form 9A and Form