“Section 119(2)”

Section References (mined)Section 119Section 119(2)554 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 119(2) is Commissioner of Customs v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (267 ITR 272), cited in 501 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 119(2)

Commissioner of Customs v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

267 ITR 272 · 2004 · Supreme Court

501

citing judgments

CBDT and CBEC circulars, along with administrative instructions, are binding on departmental authorities, who must not act in contravention of them. However, these circulars and instructions are not binding on courts or assessees.

UCO Bank v. CIT

237 ITR 889 · 1999 · Supreme Court

486

citing judgments

CBDT circulars and instructions, while not binding on courts or assessees, are strictly binding on income-tax departmental authorities, who cannot act in contravention of them.

Gajanan Constructions v. DCIT

74 Taxmann.com 6 · 2016 · ITAT

465

citing judgments

Late fees under section 234E can only be levied prospectively from June 1, 2015. Levying late fees for periods prior to this date is not permissible.

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).

Setty & Others vs. State of Karnataka (7) (1996) 1 SCC 345- Secretary Government of Madras v. P.R. Sriramulu

4 SCC 720 · 2008 · Reported

145

citing judgments

The validity of Section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961, inserted by the Finance Act, 2012, is examined by the court.

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.

Judgments citing Section 119(2)

Singularity Labs Private Limited, Gandhinagar vs. The ITO, Ward-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 423/AHD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2019-2020 Singularity Labs Private Limited Ito, Ward-4(1)(1) A Wing, Unit No.105 Vs. Ahmedabad- 380 Building No.1-A, Aqualine Properties 015. Pvt.Ltd. It/Ites Sez, Koba Gandhinagar – 382 421 Pan : Aaycs 8711 R (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Hardik Vora, Ar Assessee By : Shri Atul Pandey, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13/08/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 14/08/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V.Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Atul Pandey, Sr.DR

Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

action in denying the deduction in processing under section 143(1) of the Act. The CIT(A) further observed that under section 119(2)(b) of the Singularity Labs Pvt.Ltd. vs. ITO Asst.Year : 2019-20 4 Act, the power to condone the delay in filing such reports rests only with

Saumitra Kumar, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh vs. DCIT Circle 12, Pune, Maharashtra

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

ITA 1520/PUN/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1520/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2021-22 Saumitra Kumar, Vs. Dcit, Circle-12, Pune. Hig 111, Sector E, Aliganj, Lucknow- 226024. Pan : Bcmpk7370J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Naman Maloo (Virtual) Revenue By : Shri Amit Bobde Date Of Hearing : 23.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 14.08.2025 : आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 23.04.2025 Passed By Ld. Addl./Jcit(A), Indore [‘Ld. Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year 2021-22. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In, Confirming The Action Of Ld. Ao(Cpc) In Disallowing The Credit Of Taxes Paid Outside India While Processing The Return Of Income (Foreign Tax Credit, "Ftc") Under Section 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. Such Rejection Is Beyond The Purview Of Section 143(1). The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Is Illegal & Arbitrary & Against The Facts Of The Case. Relief May Please

For Appellant: Shri Naman Maloo (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 90Section 91

above, it is apparent that unless there is an order condoning the delay in filing Form No. 67 by the PCIT under Section 119(2)(b), such Form No. 67 can't be taken into consideration and the relief u/s 90/90A cannot be allowed by the Appellate Authority even

Thrissur District NRI Service Co-Operative Society, Thrissur vs. Income Tax Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Kochi

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

ITA 909/COCH/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Aug 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 119(2)(b)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69ASection 80P(2)(a)

income for the assessment year in question and has since filed a petition before the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) under section 119(2)(b) of the Act, seeking condonation of delay for filing the return and requesting that the return be accepted. It was further submitted that ... brought to our notice that the assessee has now filed a return of income and simultaneously filed an application before the CBDT under section 119(2)(b) of the Act seeking condonation I.T.A. No.909/COCH/2024 Thrissur District NRI Service Co-operative Society of delay in filing the said return, which

Unico Charitable Trust, Chennai vs. CIT, Exemptions, Chennai

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

ITA 1360/CHNY/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Aug 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1360/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2023-24 M/S. Unico Charitable Trust, The Commissioner Of No.4/173, Thulakanathamman Vs. Income Tax (Exemptions), Koil Street, Chennai. Surapet, Ambattur, Chennai – 600 066. Pan: Aabtu 0458P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. Parvatha Varthini, Cma ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. H. Kabila, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13.08.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 13.08.2025

For Appellant: Ms. Parvatha Varthini, CMAFor Respondent: Ms. H. Kabila, CIT

Section 119(2)(b)Section 80GSection 80G(5)(iii)

justice and that technicalities should not defeat meritorious claims. 5. The learned CIT (Exemptions) erred in not invoking the CBDT's powers under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act to condone the delay and consider the application on merits, especially when the genuineness of the Trust's activities ... files of the CIT(E) to await the decision of the Competent Authority on the condonation application filed in terms of section 119(2)(b) of the Act. 5. The Ld.DR supported the order of the CIT(E). 6. We have heard rival submissions and perused the material on record

Shri Guru Nanak Nam Lewa Sewak Jatha, Fatehgarh Sahib vs. ITO, Exemption Ward, Chandigarh

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 521/CHANDI/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Poplani, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 11Section 12ASection 139Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ “एस.एम.सी” , च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCHES, “SMC

Janki Wind Farm Developers Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(2)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1000/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri D.K. Parikh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Amit Pratap Singh, Sr.DR

Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(9)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250

return filed by the assessee. He further held that since the mistake was in the return, the remedy, if any, lies under section 119(2)(b) of the Act, which empowers the Board to condone genuine claims made after expiry of due dates. As the assessee had not approached ... CBDT under section 119(2)(b), the CIT(A) concluded that the appeal was not maintainable. The appeal was accordingly dismissed. 3. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us raising following grounds of appeal: ITA No.1000/Ahd/2025 3 1. The Ld. National faceless Appeal

ITO(Exemption), Ward-2(4), Shillong vs. North East Society of Sisters of the Holy Cross, Meghalaya

ITA 81/GTY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati11 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 11Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)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

Yug Nirman Yojana Gayatri Pariwar Trust, Berhampur vs. CIT(Exemption), Hyderabad

ITA 494/HYD/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Aug 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Us:

Section 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(iii)

regular registration under Section 80G of the Act, but the assessee trust remains at liberty to approach the CBDT for condonation under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act. Thereafter, the CIT(Exemptions) is directed to take up and dispose of the application filed by the assessee trust for regular

Victoria Educational Trust, Chennai vs. ITO, Exemption Ward-3, Chennai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 946/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:946/Chny/2025 धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2022-23 Victoria Educational Trust, Ito, 62, 6Th Street, Vs. Exemptions Ward 3, S.R.P.Colony, Chennai. Peravallur, Chennai – 600 082. [Pan:Aabtv-0115-A] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Kumar Chandan, J.C.I.T.

For Appellant: Shri. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Kumar Chandan, J.C.I.T

Section 11Section 12(1)(ac)Section 12ASection 143(1)

delay in filing the audit report in Form No.10B for the A.Y. 2022-23 before the ld.CIT(Exemptions), Chennai in terms of Section 119(2)(b) of the Act. 10. The said condonation filed in terms of Section 119(2)(b) of the Act was disposed ... Departmental Representative during the course of hearing had argued that the assessee had sought for relief in terms of Section 119(2)(b) of the Act by filing a petition for the condonation of delay in filing Form No.10B for the assessment :-10-: ITA. No:946/Chny/2025 year under consideration before

Heddur Vyavasaya Seva Sahakara Sanga Niyamitha, Shimoga vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Shimoga

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

ITA 928/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Gireesha T.L, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate for Standing

Section 139(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 249(2)Section 80ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

Instead, the appeal was rejected at the threshold without affording an opportunity for de novo adjudication on merits. 12.3 We also note that section 119(2)(b) of the Act empowers the Board to authorize any income-tax authority to admit applications or claims for any exemption, deduction, refund ... defeat substantive justice. At the time of hearing, it was brought to notice that the assessee has already moved an application under section 119(2)(b) of the Act. If the delay is condoned by the income tax authority, then the assessee is going to get the benefit of deduction

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(3), Mumbai vs. Phulchand Exports Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 3103/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Shankarlal Jain & Shri Satish KumarFor Respondent: Shri R.A Dhyani, (CIT-DR)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 36(1)(iii)

assessee could not be said to be otherwise deductible or prima facie deductible. The Act provides for a specific provision by means of Section 119(2)(b) for such further claims and hence, it was held that the fresh claim after filing of return of income was not akin

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 3(3), Mumbai vs. Phulchand Exports Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 3102/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Shankarlal Jain & Shri Satish KumarFor Respondent: Shri R.A Dhyani, (CIT-DR)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 36(1)(iii)

Phulchand Exports Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 3(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 2415/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Shri Shankarlal Jain & Shri Satish Kumar

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 36(1)(iii)

Indian Medical Association Pune Branch, Shukrawar Peth vs. DCIT Exemption Circle, Pune, Swargate

In the result, all the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 766/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250

filed by such trusts or Institutions for condoning the delay in filing Form no. 108 and in exercise of the powers conferred under section 119(2) of the Act, the Central Board of Direct Taxes hereby directs that:- (i) The delay in filing of Form ... subsequent Assessment Years, the Commissioners of Income-tax are hereby authorized to admit such belated applications of condonation of delay under section 119(2) of the IT Act and decide on merits. 6. The Commissioners of Income-tax shall, while entertaining such belated applications in filing Form No. 10B, satisfy

Indian Medical Association Pune Branch, Shukrawar Peth vs. DCIT Exemption Circle, Pune, Swargate

In the result, all the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 765/PUN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250

Indian Medical Association Pune Branch, Shukrawar Peth vs. DCIT Exemption Circle, Pune, Swargate

In the result, all the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 763/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250

Indian Medical Association Pune Branch, Shukrawar Peth vs. DCIT Exemption Circle, Pune, Swargate

In the result, all the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 762/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250

Indian Medical Association Pune Branch, Shukrawar Peth vs. DCIT Exemption Circle Pune, Swargate

In the result, all the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 761/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250

Sonali Verma, Secunderabad vs. ITO., Ward-12(6), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 778/HYD/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jul 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, Gआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.778/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21) Smt. Sonali Verma Vs. Income Tax Officer Secunderabad Ward 12 (6) Pan:Amnpv3410A Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Sk Chaturvedi, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Gurpreet Singh Sr.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 23/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 30/07/2025 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri SK Chaturvedi, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Gurpreet Singh Sr.AR

Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 90Section 91

above, it is apparent that unless there is an order condoning the delay in filing Form No. 67 by the PCIT under Section 119(2)(b), such Form No.67 can't be taken into consideration and the relief u/s. 91 cannot be allowed by the Appellate Authority even if other

Anita Garg, Hapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(3)(4), Hapur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4053/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.4053/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 बनाम Anita Garg Income Tax Officer, Hapur, Vs. Ward 2(3)(4), Santosh Garhi, Aayakar Bhawan, Opp. Jareeb Kirana Store, Teachers Colony, Near Kms School, Bulandshahar, Hapur, Rampura, Pilkhuwa, Uttar Pradesh. Uttar Pradesh. Pan No.Aaypg2767Q अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 119Section 143(2)

statutory powers under section 119 of the Act which are binding on the authorities in the administration of the Act. Under section 119(2)(a), however, the circulars as contemplated therein cannot be adverse to the assessee. The power is given for the purpose of just, proper and efficient management