← All Phrases

“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)

Sri Akshiya Shiradi Saibaba Trust, Pondcherry vs. ITO, Pondicherry

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

ITA 198/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr.P.M.Kathir, Advocate for Mr.T.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 11Section 12A(1)(b)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ 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

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

Kashyap Divya Jyoti Sewa Society, Sonebhadra vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Lucknow

In the result, all three appeals are dismissed

ITA 68/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, CIT (DR)
Section 119Section 119(2)(b)

three appeals have been filed by the assessee against the orders of the ld. CIT(Exemption) rejecting the applications of the assessee under section 119(2)(b) for condonation of delay in filing of Form 10-B by the appellant for assessment years ... considered. 5. On the other hand, Sh. R.K. Agarwal, ld. CIT DR pointed out that the appeal was not maintainable because orders under section 119(2)(b) were not included in the appealable orders before the ITAT. 6. We have duly considered the submissions made by both parties. We observe

Kashyap Divya Jyoti Sewa Society, Sonebhadra vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Lucknow

In the result, all three appeals are dismissed

ITA 67/LKW/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, CIT (DR)
Section 119Section 119(2)(b)

three appeals have been filed by the assessee against the orders of the ld. CIT(Exemption) rejecting the applications of the assessee under section 119(2)(b) for condonation of delay in filing of Form 10-B by the appellant for assessment years ... considered. 5. On the other hand, Sh. R.K. Agarwal, ld. CIT DR pointed out that the appeal was not maintainable because orders under section 119(2)(b) were not included in the appealable orders before the ITAT. 6. We have duly considered the submissions made by both parties. We observe

Kashyap Divya Jyoti Sewa Society, Sonebhadra vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption(, Lucknow

In the result, all three appeals are dismissed

ITA 66/LKW/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, CIT (DR)
Section 119Section 119(2)(b)

three appeals have been filed by the assessee against the orders of the ld. CIT(Exemption) rejecting the applications of the assessee under section 119(2)(b) for condonation of delay in filing of Form 10-B by the appellant for assessment years ... considered. 5. On the other hand, Sh. R.K. Agarwal, ld. CIT DR pointed out that the appeal was not maintainable because orders under section 119(2)(b) were not included in the appealable orders before the ITAT. 6. We have duly considered the submissions made by both parties. We observe

Rd Dynamech Infra Private Limited, Vadodara vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1)(1), Vadodara

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

ITA 863/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

Section 115BSection 119(2)(b)Section 139Section 154Section 5

115BAA of the Act by observing as follows: “ …. the CBDT has issued Circular No. 6/2022 in exercise of powers conferred under section 119(2)(b) of the Act for Assessment Year 2020-21 and after considering that representation, the Form 10-IC could not have been filed for Assessment Year ... domestic companies in exercising option under section 115BAA of the Act, the CBDT issued Circular No. 19/2023 in exercise of powers conferred under section 119(2)(b) of the Act. 25. Considering the above facts, respondent No.2 ought to have condoned the delay in filing Form

Bank of India Karmachari Sahakari Patasanstha Maryadit, Pune vs. CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 186/PUN/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jun 2025AY 2022-2023

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.186/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2022-23

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 80ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

filing of the return was for ‘reasonable cause’ then for such condonation of delay assessee has to approach the authorities mentioned in section 119(2)(b) of the Act. In the instant case, no such application for condonation of delay seems to have been filed as there is no such

Nanda Kishore Ravula, Hyderabad vs. ADIT (International Tax)-2, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 552/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.552/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2020-21) Nanda Kishore Ravula Vs. Adit (International Hyderabad Tax)-2 [Pan :Agupr0664F] Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri Nikhill Tiwari, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Gurpreet Singh, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 26/06/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 30/06/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 21.01.2025 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Ld.Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Pertaining To A.Y.2020-21. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, An Individual, Filed His Original Return Of Income For The A.Y.2020- 21 On 15.12.2020, Declaring Total Income Of Rs.1,08,11,550/-. Subsequently, The Assessee Filed Revised Return Of Income On 30.03.2021 & Claimed Foreign Tax Credit (“Ftc”) Of 2 Nanda Kishore Ravula

For Appellant: Shri Nikhill Tiwari, ARFor Respondent: Shri Gurpreet Singh, DR
Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 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

Football Players Association of India, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 1(2), Exemption, Kolkata

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 415/KOL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, 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

Football Player Association of India, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Exemption, Kolkata

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 414/KOL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: the ITAT for the sake of convenience the grounds pertaining to ITA No. 414/Kol/2025 (AY 2018-19) are extracted for reference: “1. For that, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the action of the A.O (CPC) in assessing the income of the assessee at Rs.1,07,17,801/- against the returned income of Rs.63,510/- by denying the exemption claimed by the assessee u/s 11 of the Act on the ground that the Audit Report in Form 10B and the Ret

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

Odyssey Corporation Limited, Mumbai vs. Dict Circle 2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 808/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 808/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2020-21) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 807/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2021-22) Odyssey Corporation Ltd. B/102, Haridarshan Bldg., Kandivali West S. O Mumbai, Maharashtra- 400067 V/S. बनाम Dcit-Circle 2(3)(1), Mumbai Room No. 552, 5Th Floor, Ayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai, Maharashtra- 400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaco0463C Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी निर्धारिती की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Vipul Joshi A/W Ms. Dinkle Hariya राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri Yogesh Kumar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing 08.05.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 30.06.2025

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Joshi a/w Ms. DinkleFor Respondent: Shri Yogesh Kumar
Section 115BSection 115JSection 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 250

companies in exercising the option u/s 115BAA of the Act, the Central Board of Direct Taxes, in exercise of the powers conferred under section 119(2)(b) of the Act, hereby directs that:- The delay in filing of Form 10-IC as per Rule 21AE of the Rules

Odyssey Corporation Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 807/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 808/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2020-21) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 807/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2021-22) Odyssey Corporation Ltd. B/102, Haridarshan Bldg., Kandivali West S. O Mumbai, Maharashtra- 400067 V/S. बनाम Dcit-Circle 2(3)(1), Room No. 552, 5Th Floor, Ayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai, Maharashtra- 400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaco0463C Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी निर्धारिती की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Vipul Joshi A/W Ms. Dinkle Hariya राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri Yogesh Kumar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing 08.05.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 30.06.2025 आदेश / Order Page 2

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Joshi a/w Ms. DinkleFor Respondent: Shri Yogesh Kumar
Section 115BSection 115JSection 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 250

companies in exercising the option u/s 115BAA of the Act, the Central Board of Direct Taxes, in exercise of the powers conferred under section 119(2)(b) of the Act, hereby directs that:- The delay in filing of Form 10-IC as per Rule 21AE of the Rules

Taskus India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Circle 8(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 2826/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2022-23 M/S Taskus India Pvt. Ltd., 1. Dy. Director Of Income- Ttc Industrial Area, Tower -9, Tax Central Processing Vs. Gigaplex It Park, 18Th & 19Th Centre Unit, Bengaluru, Floor, Midc, Plot No. 1 I.T.5, 1St Floor, Prestige Alpha Airoli Knowledge Park Rd, Airoli, No 48/1, 48/2 Navi Mumbai-400708. Beratenaagrahara Begur Hosur Rd Uttarahali Hobli, Bengaluru- 560100. 2. The Dy. Cit, Circle 8(3)(1), Mumbai. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aahct 0980 G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Tata Krishna
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 246A(1)(a)Section 80ASection 80J

Learned Addl./ JCIT (A) has failed to 4.3. The Learned Addl./ JCIT (A) has failed to appreciate that appreciate that under section 119(2)(b) the Board has power to authorise any under section 119(2)(b) the Board has power to authorise any under section 119(2

Vadamugam Kangayampalayam Primary Agri Co Op Credit Society Ltd, Tirupur vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(2) Tirupur, Tirupur

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

ITA 1202/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri A. Vijayalakshmi, C.A
Section 119(2)(b)Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 80ASection 80P

oraey arte after, ‘st -aariic, tag! IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI ft aa aa faga vie

Enochy Children Relief Society, Jaipur vs. ITO Exemption Ward 1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 236/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Poonia, C.A
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 12Section 12ASection 12A(1)(b)Section 13(9)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 288

jurisdictional Commissioner/Director of Income-tax to condone delay in filing Form 10B; Commissioner(Appeals) had no power to condone such delay as per section 119(2)(b) of the Act. 6.8 Hence, based upon the above discussion and the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Principal Commissioner ... Addl./Joint Commissioner of Income(Appeals) [AddI/JCIT(A)]. and Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) [CIT(A)] do not have the authority under section 119(2)(b) of the Act to grant condonation for delay in filing of Form no. 10B. The appellant has the option to approach the competent authority

Enochy Children Relief Society, Jaipur vs. ITO Exemption Ward 1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 235/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Poonia, C.A
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 12Section 12ASection 12A(1)(b)Section 13(9)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 288

jurisdictional Commissioner/Director of Income-tax to condone delay in filing Form 10B; Commissioner(Appeals) had no power to condone such delay as per section 119(2)(b) of the Act. 6.8 Hence, based upon the above discussion and the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Principal Commissioner ... Addl./Joint Commissioner of Income(Appeals) [AddI/JCIT(A)]. and Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) [CIT(A)] do not have the authority under section 119(2)(b) of the Act to grant condonation for delay in filing of Form no. 10B. The appellant has the option to approach the competent authority

Telangana State Medical Council, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, (Exemptions) Ward-1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 399/HYD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, SR-DR
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(2)Section 143(3)

exemption under Section 11 of the Act should be granted on equitable grounds. It was also candidly admitted that no condonation petition under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act had been filed by the assessee before the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) for condonation of delay ... Since the assessee failed to comply with this mandatory condition, and no condonation was obtained from the CBDT under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act, the exemption under Section 11 of the Act cannot be granted to the assessee. 11. We have considered the rival contentions and perused

International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage Employees Provident Fund (Icid Pf Trust), New Delhi vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed as above

ITA 4204/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 10Section 10(21)Section 10(25)(ii)Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 154

part A of the Fourth Schedule of the Act since 30.08.1984. A simple prima-facie mistake Act. The assessee filed petitions, under section 119(2) of the Act, before the Ld. PCIT to allow the assessee to revise ITRs. However, the same vide orders dated 23.07.2024 [DIN: ITBA/COM/F/17/2024-25/1066910706