“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)

Aravali Buildhomes LLP, Jaipur vs. AO CPC, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1154/JPR/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

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

For Appellant: Sh. Ashok Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anoop Singh, Addl. CIT

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 80Section 80ASection 80I

limit specified under section 139(1). The issue before the Delhi High Court pertained to order passed in the assessee's application under section 119(2)(6) of the Act seeking extension of time for filing of return. The ground forwarded for late filing of the return was delay ... authority denying deduction under section 80IB has attained finality. (iv) The petitioner had applied to extension of time for filing of return under section 119 (2)(b) for the assessment year 2006-07 vide application dated 11th May, 2011, nearly four years after the return was filed. (iv) This delay

Shri Dhoraji Nagrik Sharafi and Grahak Sahkari Mandali Limited, Dhoraji vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2)(1), Rajkot

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes, in above terms

ITA 478/RJT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot02 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.478/Rjt/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Shri Dhoraji Nagrik Sharafi & Vs. Income Tax Officer Grahak Sahkari Mandali Ltd. Ward – 1(2)(1), C/O. Sarda & Sarda, Sakar, 1St Rajkot. Floor, Dr. Radha – Krishnan Road, Opp. Rajkumar College, Rajkot- 360001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaad7775Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 80ASection 80P

deduction claimed by the assessee, under section 80P of the Act. Moreover, the assessee has not availed the benefit of the provisions of section 119(2) (b) of the Income tax Act, to file the petition for condonation of delay before the learned Principal Commissioner of Income

Salt Lake Sanskritik Sansad, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 40/KOL/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 May 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 40/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2023-2024 Salt Lake Sanskritik Sansad,…………...……Appellant Sector-1, Trust Bhawan, Ca-49, Salt Lake, Kolkata-700064, West Bengal [Pan:Aaets4162K] -Vs.- Deputy Director Of Income Tax,................Respondent Circle Cpc, Bengaluru, Prestige Alpha, Post Bag No. 2, Electronic City Post, Hosur Road, Bangalore-560 100, Karnataka Appearances By: Shri N. Kausic, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Kallol Mistry, Jcit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: April 23, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: May 30, 2025 O R D E R

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 119(2)Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2

Society is a Charitable Society filed Form 10BB belatedly and the power to condone the delay lies with the Income Tax Officer under section 119(2) of the Act. 2 Salt Lake Sanskritik Sansad 4. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ITAT and raised the following ... other hand, ld. Departmental Representative submits that the assessee ought to have filed the condonation petition before the revenue authorities under section 119(2)(b) of the Act as directed by the CBDT vide Circular No. 16/2024 dated 18.11.2024. The assessee has a remedy to approach the authorities under section

Sudarshan De, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ghaziabad

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 5177/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalsudarsan De Vs. Dcit C/O. C S Anand, Advocate Circle-2(1)(1), B-81, First Floor, (Part B), Ghaziabad Defence Colony, Bhishma Pitamah Marg, New Delhi Pan: Abdpd3749F Appellant Respondent Assessee By Advocate C.S. Anand & Advocate Vaishnavi Yadav Revenue By Sh. Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 26/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/05/2025 Order Per Yogesh Kumar, U.S. Jm:

Section 119(2)Section 147Section 270A

1 Sudarshan De Vs. DCIT IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI (DELHI BENCH ‘G’ NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI YOGESH

Vardayini Co-Operative Housing Society Limited, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Pune

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

ITA 1991/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1991/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21 Vardayini Co-Operative Vs. Ito, Ward-2(2), Pune. Housing Society Limited, Plot No.96, Vardayini Sangruh Marva, Pashan Sus Road, Pune- 411021. Pan : Aabav3603Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Pramod S. Shingte Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai Date Of Hearing : 05.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.05.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 25.07.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Lower Authorities Have Erred In Considering The Gross Total Income Of Rs. 6,32,09,055/- As Assessed Income Of The Appellant, Without Appreciating The Fact That Out Of This Rs. 5,35,00,000/- Is Already Offered For Taxation & Taxes Due Thereon Are Fully Paid

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai

Section 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 80ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

month in which such application is received from the applicant or transferred by the Board. No order rejecting the application under section 119(2)(b) of the Act shall be passed without providing the applicant an opportunity of being heard. Vikas Singh, Director (ITA-1)” However

Jeevan Kalyana Sadhana Kendra, Kolkata vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemption, Sambalpur

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

ITA 195/CTK/2025[2023-24]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack28 May 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 11Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 12A(1)(b)Section 143(1)Section 250

facts and in the circumstances of the case unless the court directs under alternative remedy or the CIT(Exemptions) condones the delay under section 119(2)(b) of the Act. The assessee had submitted before the Ld. CIT(A) by citing several judicial pronouncements that the delay in filing Form ... Circular No. 16 of 2022 I.T.A. No.: 195/CTK/2025 Assessment Year: 2023-24 Jeevan Kalyana Sadhana Kendra. 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

Lokumal Kishinchand Charity Trust, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Exemption Ward 1(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assesseeis allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1267/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Lokumal Kishinchand Charity Trust Ito Exemption Ward-1(4), 629-A, Gazdar House, 3Rd Floor, Vs Mumbai J Shanker Seth Marg, Dhobi Talao, Mumbai – 400002. [Pan No. Aaatl2570L] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 119(2)(b)Section 12A(1)(b)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 254(1)Section 44A

sufficient reasons. 2. It is submitted that the Appellant sought redressal of the issue by filing a petition for Condonation of Delay under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act with the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) in line with the CBDT Circular No. 16/2022. However, no further communication ... Since, there was delay of 29 days in filing Form 10B, the assessee filed application for condonation of delay before Commissioner (Exemption) under section 119(2)(b) on the basis of circular No. 20 of 2022 dated 30/09/2022 issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT). In the meantime

Chirag Rural Development Foundation, Mumbai vs. Asst. Director of Income Tax, Centralized Processing Centre, Income Tax Department Bengaluru, Gurugram

ITA 250/MUM/2025[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Kirit SanghviFor Respondent: Gotimukul Santosh Kumar

Section 11Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 250

after a delay of 2 days. The Assessee has already moved application for seeking condonation of delay in filing Form 10B. As per Section 119(2)(b) of the Act, an application for seeking condonation of delay can be filed before Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT). However ... application seeking condonation of delay filed by the Assessee. 8. The Assessee is directed to place a copy of the Application filed under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act before the Learned Principal Commission or the Learned Commissioner, as the case may be, along with a copy

Women Organisation for Socio Cultural Awarness, Keonjhar vs. ITO, Exemptions, Cuttack

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

ITA 67/CTK/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack22 May 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Shri Rakesh Mishra

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

Para-04 above, the assessee carried appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). This apart the assessee made an application under section 119(2)(b) of the IT Act to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Hyderabad for condonation of the delay committed in filing the Audit Report

Bengal Education Foundation, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Exemption, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 199/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.199/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Bengal Education Foundation…………….………………………..………….……Appellant 17/1, Rishi Bankim Chandra Road, Dum Dum, Kol-28. [Pan: Aactb1869Q] Vs. Ito, Ward-1(2), Exemption, Kolkata…..……....….….. ……………….........…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manish Tiwari, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Smt. Archana Gupta, Addl. Cit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 15, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 20, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 26.12.2024 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeal Addl/Jcit(A)-2, Pune [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Public Charitable Trust & Had Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2022-23 In Itr-7 On 02.11.2022 Under The Status Of Aop/Boi By Declaring Nil Income After Claiming Exemption U/S 11 Of The Act Amounting To Rs.1,15,12,715/-. The Said Return Of Income Was Processed By Cpc & Vide Intimation Order Dated 31.03.2023 A Demand Of Rs.50,28,260/- Had Been Raised After Denying The Assessee’S Claim Of Exemption U/S 11 Of The Act Made In The Return Of Income. Before Passing Of The Intimation Order U/S 143(1) Of The Act, The Cpc Had Sent Communication To The Assessee On 14.02.2023 Intimating The Proposed Adjustments.

Section 11Section 119(2)(b)Section 143(1)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

Sri. Vikram Shetty, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result, all the grounds of appeal are restored back to the ld

ITA 2170/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Bhat, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel

Section 144Section 54Section 90

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC - C” BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K

Lahanda Gomarda Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Ltd., Uttar Dinajpur vs. ITO Ward-2(4), Raiganj

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 131/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Lahanda Gomarda Samabay Income Tax Officer, Krishi Unnayan Samity Ltd. Ward 2(4), Maharaja Hat, Lahanda, It Office, Sbi Building, Vs. Dist. Uttar Dinajpur, Karnojhora, Raiganj, West West Bengal 733129 Dinajpur, West Bengal-733134 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaal5359A Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury & Shri Pranabesh Sarkar, Ars Revenue By : Shri Kapil Monda, Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.05.2025

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury &For Respondent: Shri Kapil Monda, DR

Section 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

Miles Education Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-16(3), Hyderabad

ITA 153/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri A.V.Raghuram, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rahul Singhania, DR

Section 115BSection 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)

A.Y.2020-21 i.e., the first year of the filing of “Form 10-IC”, had in the exercise of the powers vested with it under section 119(2)(b) of the Act, vide Circular No. 6/2022, dated 17/03/2022 directed that the delay in filing of “Form 10-IC” read with Rule

Up Government Employees Welfare, Lucknow vs. ACIT-2, Lucknow

ITA 745/LKW/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow14 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manu Chaurasia, CIT(DR)

Section 119(2)Section 124Section 139Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 226(3)Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “B”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI NIKHIL CHOUDHARY

Sri Kumawat Samaj Trust, Chennai vs. CIT, Exemptions, Chennai

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

ITA 627/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.627/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21 Sri Kumawat Samaj Trust, Vs. The Commissioner Of No. 14, 1St Floor, Kumarappa Street, Income Tax (Exemptions), Sevenwells, Chennai 600 001. Chennai. [Pan:Aavts7941K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Naresh Singh Rathore, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 29.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14.05.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.12.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Chennai For The Assessment Year 2020-21 Under Section 119(2)(B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri Naresh Singh Rathore, CAFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, CIT

Section 111Section 115VSection 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 132Section 132ASection 139Section 154Section 158BSection 250

directed against the order dated 29.12.2024 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Chennai for the assessment year 2020-21 under section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short]. 2. At the outset, we note that the assessee filed delay condonation petition before ... belatedly filing Form No. 10B. The said petition filed under section 119(2)(b) of the Act was dismissed by the 2 I.T.A. No.627/Chny/25 ld. CIT(E). The assessee filed present appeal challenging the action of the ld. CIT(E) is contrary to the law in the facts and circumstances

Jaico Publishing House, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward Circle 17(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1753/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Kothari, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, (Sr. DR)

Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 90Section 91

credit was not justified once revised form 67 was filed and error rectified, erred in directing the assessee to file a petition under section 119(2)(b) before the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax seeking condonation of delay in revising Form 67 and directing the Assessing Officer to verify ... suggested that the assessee may file a condonation petition P a g e | 4 A.Y. 2019-20 Jaico Publishing House under section 119(2)(b) of the Act before the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax. Such a petition would allow the appellant to seek condonation of the delay in revising

Mitali Gupta Shaikh, Pune vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 7, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 136/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumarmitali Gupta Shaikh, 17, Bank House, R.B.I. Flats, Backbay Reclamation, Near Mantralay, Mumbai – 400 020 Pan No. Amvps 6633C ...... Appellant Vs.

For Appellant: Mr. S. L. Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-Ld. DR

Section 10Section 119(2)Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR BENCH “A”, JAIPUR BEFORE SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI NARINDER KUMAR

Tera Unemployed Engineers Co-Operative Society Ltd., Coochbehar vs. ITO, Ward-2(2), Coochbehar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 674/KOL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Tera Unemployed Engineers Co-Operative Society Ltd. Ito, Ward-2(2) Girish Bhawan, Magazine Road It Building, Biswan Singha Road, Vs. Extension, Coochbehar, West Coochbehar,West Bengal-736101 Bengal, 736101 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaalt0515B Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury & Shri Pranabesh Sarkar, Ars Revenue By : Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, Dr Date Of Hearing: 07.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.05.2025

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury &For Respondent: Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, DR

Section 143(2)

Hind Ceramics Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 10(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 610/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury &For Respondent: Shri Huidrom Robindro Singh, DR

Section 143(2)Section 234BSection 24(1)

Hind Ceramics Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 10(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 608/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury &For Respondent: Shri Huidrom Robindro Singh, DR

Section 143(2)Section 234BSection 24(1)