← 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)

Annai Velankanni Educational Trust, Tirunelveli vs. ITO, Exemption Ward, Tirunelveli, Triunelveli

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

ITA 2185/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2185/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Annai Velankanni Educational Trust, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 262A, Thiruchendur Road, Exemptions Ward, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli. Palayamkottai H.O. Tirunelveli 627 002. [Pan:Aaeta3416A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. Raghupathy, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 19.12.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.12.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 12.02.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 129 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Explaining Reasons

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Raghupathy, Addl. CIT
Section 11Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 144

condoned the delay in filing audit report in Form 10B as well as delay in filing return of income vide his order under section 119(2)(b) of the Act dated 08.10.2020 & 26.11.2024 respectively and placed a copy of the same on record. He further submits that the assessee ... excess of income over expenditure was disallowed. We have perused the orders of the ld. CIT(E) passed under section 119(2)(b) of the Act dated 08.10.2020 in condoning the delay in filing audit report in Form 10B as well as condoning the delay filing the return of income

Delhi Maharashtriya Educational and Cultural Society, New Delhi vs. CIT(Exemption), New Delhi

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

ITA 3195/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmandelhi Maharashtriya Educational & Vs. Cit (Exemption), Cultural Society, New Delhi. Ram Bagh, Walchand Palace, Paharganj, New Delhi – 110 055. (Pan : Aaatd5737F) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Abhishek Jain, Ca Revenue By : Shri Surender Pal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.11.2024 Date Of Order : 23.12.2024 Order Per S.Rifaur Rahman,Am: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Exemption), Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To ‘Ld. Cit (E)’) Dated 14.06.2024 For Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. At The Outset, Ld. Ar For The Assessee Submitted That The Ld. Cit (E) Rejected The Petition/Application Filed For Condonation Of Delay U/S 119(2)(B) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’) In Filing Of Form 10B For The Ay 2018-19. He Submitted That There Was Only A Delay

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, CIT DR
Section 119(2)(b)

compliance.” 3. Ld. AR for the assessee further contended that vide circular No.2/2020 dated 03.01.2020, CBDT in exercise of the powers conferred under section 119(2)(b) of the Act, authorised the Commissioners to admit the belated applications of condonation of delay of 365 days for the assessment years