← 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)

ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vejalpur vs. The Gujarat State Co-Op. Bank Ltd., Ahmedabad City

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 124/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 37

Impugned order Though contended, no contrary Instructions of CBDT are brought to our notice. The instruction in question having been issued under section 119(2) of the Income- tax Act, 1961, would bind the Revenue. No question of law. therefore, arises." 4 Respectfully following the judgment of Hon'ble jurisdictional

Corrohealth Infotech Private Limited (Resultant Entity Post-Merger of Visionary Rcm Infotech (India), Kancheepuram vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai

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

ITA 1516/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1516/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 V. M/S.Corrohealth Infotech Pvt. Ltd., The Dcit, [Resultant Entity Post-Merger Of Corporate Circle-1(1), Visionary Rcm Infotech (India)], Chennai. Dlf, It Park – Sez, 1B, 3Rd Floor, 1/124, Shivaji Garden, Mount Poonamalee Road, Nandambakkam, Kudiyiruppu So, Kanchipuram District-600 089. [Pan: Aaicc 4941 P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Dr.D.Praveen, JCIT
Section 80J

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी एबी टी. वक", "ाियक

Ana Charitable Trust, Thane vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward, Thane

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 58/MUM/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jul 2024AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya , CAFor Respondent: ShriManoj Kumar Sinha (SR.DR.)
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 250

which is reproduced as below: - “5.9 CBDT has issued circular No.06/2020 dated 19.02.2020 to overcome this difficulty and to Condone of delay under section 119(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in filing ofReturn of Income for A.Y 2016-17,2017-18, and 2018- 19 and Form No.9A ... Accordingly, in continuation of earlier Circulars issued in this regard, with the view to prevent hardship to the assesseeand inexerciseof 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

Indian Analytical Instruments Association, Powai vs. CPC Or ITO (E), Ward 1(3) Mumbai, Piramal Chamber

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 640/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 11Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 29

Income Tax. However, the ld. PCIT (Exemption) has refused to condone the delay after observing and holding as under:- “Subject: Condonation under section 119(2)(b)-Order The assessee filed application for condoration of dalay in filing Form No.10B for A.Y. 2021-22 on 13.10.2022. The assessee filed its Return

M/S. Arham Mitra Mandal, Bangalore vs. Income-Tax Officer(Exemptions)-Ward-1, Bangalore

ITA 1110/BANG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri. Narendra Kumar Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 119Section 119(2)(b)Section 250

condonation application, it is stated that assessee was pursuing alternative remedy and when the same was dismissed by the PCIT(E) under section 119(2)(b) of the Act on 22.09.2023, the assessee trust immediately filed an appeal before the Tribunal on 11.12.2023. The relevant portion of the condonation application ... dismissing the Appeal filed the Petitioner. • The Petitioner filed an application for condonation of delay in filing audit report under section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, before the CBDT through speed post on 26.08.2020 vide acknowledgement vide Ack No. EK078008789IN. • The CBDT issued circular 16/2022 dated 19th

Sujan Mohinder Charitable Trust, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 2(2) Exemption, New Delhi

In the result, assessee's appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 539/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2017-18 Sujan Mohinder Charitable Trust, Vs Ito, 8, Eastern Avenue, Ward 2(2) Exemption, Maharani Bagh, New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 065. Pan: Aaats7083F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms Vandana Bhandari, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ravi Kant Choudhary, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 10.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.06.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 30.12.2022 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac (Hereinafter Referred As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or In Short Ld. ‘Faa’) In Appeal No.Cit(A), Delhi-40/10374/2019-20 Arising Out Of The Appeal Before It Against The Order Dated 28.12.2019 Passed U/S 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’), By The Ito, Exemption, Ward 2(2), New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao). The Assessee Is A Charitable Trust Created By A Trust Deed Dated 6Th March, 2. 1978 & Is Registered U/S 12A Of The Act. The Assessee’S Case Was Picked Up For Scrutiny & The Ao Examined The Cash Deposits Of Rs.34,53,730/- During The Demonetization Period & Further Observed That During The Relevant Assessment Year No Return Has Been Filed By The Assessee Either U/S 139 Of The Act Or In Response To Notice U/S 142(1) Of The Act. Accordingly, The Assessment Was Completed U/S 144 Of The Act Making An Addition Of Rs.1,22,87,399/- U/S 69A Of The Act On Account Of Following Show Cause Notice:-

For Appellant: Ms Vandana Bhandari, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Kant Choudhary, Sr. DR
Section 10BSection 11Section 119(2)Section 12ASection 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : G : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND

Bharat Fritz Werner Ltd., Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 771/BANG/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Sri Sandeep Chalapathy, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Neha Sahay, D.R
Section 250

claim or any other relief under this Act after the expiry of the period specified by or under this Act as per Section 119(2)(b) of the Act. The powers to admit any new claim or relief is vested with the Boatd as per provisions of section 119(2

Anjuman E Khadimul Muslimeen Refah-E-Aam, Kachiguda vs. DCIT., Exemption Circle 1(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 552/HYD/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Jun 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)

lead to the rejection of the claim of the assessee. Further, it is submitted that the delay in filing form 10B under section 119(2)(b) of the Act was condoned by the learned CIT(E) by order dated 18/03/2024. A copy of such an order is filed and forms ... levied and collected. 12. In these circumstances, in view of the fact of condonation of delay in filing form 10B under section 119(2)(b) of the Act by the learned CIT(E) by order dated 18/03/2024 and while giving effect to the above circular, we are of the considered

Kattappana Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Idukki vs. The Income Tax Officer, Thodupuzha

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the stay application is dismissed

ITA 706/COCH/2023[AY 2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Jun 2024

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Anil D. Nair, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ilaiyaraja K.S., Sr. D.R
Section 119(2)(b)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80Section 80P

learned A.R. also filed an order passed by the Pr. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (PCCIT), Kerala under Section 119(2)(b) of the 3 SA No. 160/Coch/2023 Kattappana Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. Act in which the PCCIT had condoned the delay in filing the return under Section ... considering the issue afresh. While deciding the issue afresh the ld. AO is directed to consider the order passed by the PCCIT under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act and also the genuine claim of the assessee made u/s 80P of the Act and pass appropriate order in accordance

Al Ameen Islamick Trust, Howrah vs. Additional Director of Income Tax, Centralized Processing Centre, Bengaluru

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

ITA 617/KOL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jun 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra]

Section 11Section 119(2)(b)Section 12A(1)(b)Section 244A

Circular No. 2/2020 [F. No, 197/55/2018-ITA-I], dated 19/07/2022 has been authorized to admit belated application of condonation of delay under section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act and decide on merits and satisfy himself that as to whether the assessee was prevented by reasonable cause from filing such

Atishay Super Specialist Hospital Private Limited, Indore vs. Addl JCIT (A), Indore

ITA 92/IND/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Indore18 Jun 2024AY 2021-22
Section 119(2)(b)

को “Condonation of delay under आ.अ.सं. 92/इंदौर/2024 2 अ"तशय सुपर "पेश"ल"ट हॉ"पीटल "ा."ल., इंदौर section 119(2)(b)of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in filing Form 10-IC for Assessment Year 2021-22” के संबंध म" प"रप" सं. 19/2023 जार

Shiksha Foundation, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-2 (Exemp), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 441/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Divyang Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Santosh Kumar, Sr. D.R
Section 11Section 119Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250

authorized jurisdictional Commissioner/Director of Income-tax to condone delay in Sing Form 10B, and Commissioner (Appeals) did not have any power under section 119(2)(b) to condone delay in filing Form 10B. Thus, Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed assessee's appeal holding that assessee had remedy before jurisdictional Commissioner Pr Commissioner/Director ... have not made any application for condonation of delay in filing Form 10B before concerned P Commissioner/Commissioner/Director of Income-tax as provided under section 119(2). Therefore on the question of whether there was no infirmity in order passed by Commissioner (Appeals), the Hble Tribunal held "Yes" in Paras

Adarsh Shishu Vihar, Indore vs. DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru and ITO Exemption Ward, Indore

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 526/IND/2023[2019-2020]Status: HeardITAT Indore13 Jun 2024AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2019-20 Adarsh Shishu Vihar, Dcit, Cpc, Bengaluru & C/O Ca Rajesh Mehta, Ito (Exemption Ward), Rajesh Heeralal Mehta & Indore Company, Chartered Accountants, बनाम/ 203, Manas Bhawan Extn, Vs. 11, Rnt Marg, Near Hotel Shreemaya, Indore (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aaaaa2270K Assessee By Shri Apurva Mehta, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 13 .06.2024

Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)

difference. The relevant para of the judgement is as under: “5.6 The tribunal further committed an error in appreciating the import of Section 119(2)(b) of the Act in as much as the application contemplated thereunder is only additional remedy for the assessee which could not be said

Aprameya Engineering Limited, Ahmedabad vs. Ward 1(1)(1), Income Tax Officer, Ahmedabad

In the result, the order of the CIT(A) is set aside, and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 456/AHD/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Jun 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member Assessment Year: 2022-23 Aprameya Engineering Limited The Income Tax Officer 908, 9Th Floor, Vs Ward-1(1)(1) Venus Atlantis Ahmedabad Corporate Park Anandnagar, Prahlad Nagar Ahmedabad – 380 015 (Gujarat) Pan: Aawca 3138 N अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sunil Talati, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ketan Gajjar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 03/06/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokarthis Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Add/Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 5 Mumbai (Hereinafter Referred As “The Cit(A)”), Dated 23-02-2024, Which Dismissed The Assessee'S Appeal Against The Intimation Under Section 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As “The Act”), Passed By The Central Processing Centre (Cpc) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2022-23. The Primary Issue Is The Rejection Of The Assessee'S Claim For Taxation At A Lower Rate Under Section Aprameya Engineering Ltd. Vs. Ito Asst. Year : 2022-23

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Talati, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ketan Gajjar, Sr.DR
Section 115BSection 119(2)(b)Section 143(1)

nature. The assessee also submitted that the delay in filing Form 10-IC should be condoned in accordance with the provisions of section 119(2)(b) of the Act. Ld. CIT(A), however, dismissed the appeal stating that the beneficial provisions should be “strictly” and “literally” complied with and, therefore ... While dismissing the plea of assessee to condone the delay in filing of form 10-IC, the Ld.CIT(A) stated that as per section 119(2)(b) of the Act, the first appellate Aprameya Engineering Ltd. vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2022-23 authority does not have the power to condone

Satpuda Foundation, Amravati vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Nagpur

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 143/NAG/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur03 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. Moryani a/wFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234A

filed by such trusts or institutions for condoning the delay in filing Form no. 1013 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 ... INCOME Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue Central Board of Direct Taxes New Delhi, the 19th February, 2020 Sub: Condonation of delay under section 119(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in filing of Return of Income for A.Y 2016-17, 2017-18, and 2018-19 and Form

Shaheed Bishan Singh Memorial Senior Secondary School, Mansarover Garden, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward Exemption 2(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 180/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2021-22] Shaheed Bishan Singh Memorial Vs Ito, Senior Secondary School, Ward(Exemption)-2(1), F-213, Mansarover Garden, New Delhi. New Delhi-110015. Pan-Aacts8314D Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Kurshid Ahmed, Adv. Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 29.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 29.05.2024 Order Per Kul Bharat, Jm : The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld.Cit(A)/Addl/Jcit(A), Madurai Dated 30.12.2023 For The Assessment Year 2021-22. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 119(2)(b)Section 12A

only the jurisdictional Commissioner/Director of Income-tax to condone delay in filing Form 10, and Commissioner (Appeals) did not have any power under section 119(2)(b) to condone delay in filing Form 10. Accordingly, the power of condonation of delay in filing Form 10 rests with CIT (Exemption) only

The Adarsha Bharathi Farmers Service Cooperative Society Limited, Kanekal vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1, Kurnool

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

ITA 579/HYD/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 May 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Shashank Dundu, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Pranav, CIT-DR
Section 119(2)(b)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 80P

appeal. 4. In this connection, learned AR placed on record a copy of the order condoning the delay in filing ITR, under section 119(2)(b) of the Act, wherein it was clearly mentioned that “after carefully considering the submission of the assessee and in view of the CBDT

Akuntha Projects Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. Director, CPC, Bengaluru, Jurisdictional AO- the ITO, Ward-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 52/AHD/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 May 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Biren Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ankit Jain, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 80J

circumstances the only remedy available, lies in the machinery provisions of the Act rather 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 cases. The provisions of section 119(2)(b) are reproduced below ... 2) on the ground that the audit report was not filed. 5.6 The tribunal further committed an error in appreciating the import of Section 119 2(b) of the Act inasmuch as the application contemplated thereunder is only additional remedy for the assessee which could not be said

Nancy Ann Miller Educational Trust, Indore vs. Income Tax Officer-Exemption, Indore

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 29/IND/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore16 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2018-19 Nancy Ann Miller Income-Tax Officer, Educational Trust, Ward-(Exemption), बनाम/ 64/67, Dhar Kothi, Indore. Vs. Indore. (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aaatn4010B Assessee By Shri S.S.Deshpande, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 08.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 16.05.2024

Section 11Section 12ASection 143Section 143(1)Section 154

difference. The relevant para of the judgement is as under: “5.6 The tribunal further committed an error in appreciating the import of Section 119(2)(b) of the Act in as much as the application contemplated thereunder is only additional remedy for the assessee which could not be said

Star Health and Allied Insurance Company Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Corp Circle - 3(1), Chennai

The appeal stand partly allowed

ITA 291/CHNY/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 May 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.291/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2021-22) M/S Star Health & Allied Insurance Dcit बनाम/ Company Limited Corporate Circle-3(1), 1-A, Star Tower, Nungambakkam S.O Vs. Chennai. Chennai-600 034. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aajcs-4517-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri G. Baskar (Advocate)-Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan (Addl.Cit)-Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15-05-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 15-05-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar (Advocate)-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan (Addl.CIT)-Ld. Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 3

CBDT has directed as under: - CIRCULAR NO. 19/2023 [F. NO. 173/32/2022-ITA-I], DATED 23-10-2023 In exercise of the powers conferred under section 119(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), the Central Board of Direct Taxes ('CBDT') by Circular No. 6/2022 of even number, dated ... genuine hardship to the domestic companies in exercising the option u/s 115BAA of the Act, CBDT in exercise of the powers conferred under section 119(2)(b) of the Act, hereby directs that: — The delay in filing of Form No. 10-IC as per Rule 21AE of the Rules