← 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)

Vadodara Urban Development Authority, Vadodara vs. The ACIT, Circle-2 (Exemp), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 344/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(2)Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 22

well. Subsequently, by way of CBDT Circular No.03/2020 dated 03.01.2020, the Commissioners were authorized to admit the belated delay condonation applications under Section 119(2) of the Act where delay is upto 365 days. 7.2 More recently, by way of similar CBDT Circular No. 17/2022 dated 17.07.2022, the Commissioners were ... filing Form 10, which was allowed by the Commissioner Income Tax vide order dated 26.12.2019 correctly, laying emphasis that the mandate of Section 119(2)(b) of the Act is to mitigate the genuine hardship of assessee in certain circumstances and authorization to the Commissioners to admit the belated Form

Vadodara Urban Development Authority, Vadodara vs. The ACIT, Circle-2 (Exemp), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 343/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(2)Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 22

well. Subsequently, by way of CBDT Circular No.03/2020 dated 03.01.2020, the Commissioners were authorized to admit the belated delay condonation applications under Section 119(2) of the Act where delay is upto 365 days. 7.2 More recently, by way of similar CBDT Circular No. 17/2022 dated 17.07.2022, the Commissioners were ... filing Form 10, which was allowed by the Commissioner Income Tax vide order dated 26.12.2019 correctly, laying emphasis that the mandate of Section 119(2)(b) of the Act is to mitigate the genuine hardship of assessee in certain circumstances and authorization to the Commissioners to admit the belated Form

Vadodara Urban Development Authority, Vadodara vs. The ACIT, Circle-2 (Exemp), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 342/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(2)Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 22

well. Subsequently, by way of CBDT Circular No.03/2020 dated 03.01.2020, the Commissioners were authorized to admit the belated delay condonation applications under Section 119(2) of the Act where delay is upto 365 days. 7.2 More recently, by way of similar CBDT Circular No. 17/2022 dated 17.07.2022, the Commissioners were ... filing Form 10, which was allowed by the Commissioner Income Tax vide order dated 26.12.2019 correctly, laying emphasis that the mandate of Section 119(2)(b) of the Act is to mitigate the genuine hardship of assessee in certain circumstances and authorization to the Commissioners to admit the belated Form

Jt.CIT(E), Circle-2 Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad vs. Vadodara Urban Development Authority, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 335/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(2)Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 22

well. Subsequently, by way of CBDT Circular No.03/2020 dated 03.01.2020, the Commissioners were authorized to admit the belated delay condonation applications under Section 119(2) of the Act where delay is upto 365 days. 7.2 More recently, by way of similar CBDT Circular No. 17/2022 dated 17.07.2022, the Commissioners were ... filing Form 10, which was allowed by the Commissioner Income Tax vide order dated 26.12.2019 correctly, laying emphasis that the mandate of Section 119(2)(b) of the Act is to mitigate the genuine hardship of assessee in certain circumstances and authorization to the Commissioners to admit the belated Form

Jt.CIT(E), Circle -2 Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad vs. Vadodara Urban Development Authority, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 334/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(2)Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 22

well. Subsequently, by way of CBDT Circular No.03/2020 dated 03.01.2020, the Commissioners were authorized to admit the belated delay condonation applications under Section 119(2) of the Act where delay is upto 365 days. 7.2 More recently, by way of similar CBDT Circular No. 17/2022 dated 17.07.2022, the Commissioners were ... filing Form 10, which was allowed by the Commissioner Income Tax vide order dated 26.12.2019 correctly, laying emphasis that the mandate of Section 119(2)(b) of the Act is to mitigate the genuine hardship of assessee in certain circumstances and authorization to the Commissioners to admit the belated Form

Jt.CIT(Exemption)Circl-2 Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad vs. Vadodara Urban Development Authority, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 333/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(2)Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 22

well. Subsequently, by way of CBDT Circular No.03/2020 dated 03.01.2020, the Commissioners were authorized to admit the belated delay condonation applications under Section 119(2) of the Act where delay is upto 365 days. 7.2 More recently, by way of similar CBDT Circular No. 17/2022 dated 17.07.2022, the Commissioners were ... filing Form 10, which was allowed by the Commissioner Income Tax vide order dated 26.12.2019 correctly, laying emphasis that the mandate of Section 119(2)(b) of the Act is to mitigate the genuine hardship of assessee in certain circumstances and authorization to the Commissioners to admit the belated Form

Anand Bhalchandra Kulkarni, Navi Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune-1, Pune

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are rejected as unadmitted being non-maintainable

ITA 1357/PUN/2023[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi () Ita Nos. 1352 To 1357/Pun/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 To 2022-23 Anand Bhalchandra Kulkarni, Pr. Cit, Pune-1, G/701 Tulip Afnhb Camp Pmt Building, Swargate, Jalvvayu Vishar Phase-1, Plot-20, Vs. Pune-411037. Sec 20, Kharghar-410210. Pan No. Aanpk 7550 Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Lokesh K Gandhi (ThroughFor Respondent: Mr. Mirtyunjay Barnwal (Through
Section 115VSection 119Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 132Section 132ASection 143Section 147Section 153ASection 153C

condonation of delay in filing the revised return of income for assessment years 2017-18 to 2022-23 under the provisions of section 119(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). The Ld. PCIT vide impugned order rejected such request for condoning the delay ... relevant material on record. At the outset, we find that this order has been passed by the Ld. PCIT in terms of section 119(2)(b) of the Act. The orders, against which appeals could be preferred before the ITAT, have been specified in section

Anand Bhalchandra Kulkarni, Navi Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune-1, Pune

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are rejected as unadmitted being non-maintainable

ITA 1356/PUN/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi () Ita Nos. 1352 To 1357/Pun/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 To 2022-23 Anand Bhalchandra Kulkarni, Pr. Cit, Pune-1, G/701 Tulip Afnhb Camp Pmt Building, Swargate, Jalvvayu Vishar Phase-1, Plot-20, Vs. Pune-411037. Sec 20, Kharghar-410210. Pan No. Aanpk 7550 Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Lokesh K Gandhi (ThroughFor Respondent: Mr. Mirtyunjay Barnwal (Through
Section 115VSection 119Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 132Section 132ASection 143Section 147Section 153ASection 153C

condonation of delay in filing the revised return of income for assessment years 2017-18 to 2022-23 under the provisions of section 119(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). The Ld. PCIT vide impugned order rejected such request for condoning the delay ... relevant material on record. At the outset, we find that this order has been passed by the Ld. PCIT in terms of section 119(2)(b) of the Act. The orders, against which appeals could be preferred before the ITAT, have been specified in section

Anand Bhalchandra Kulkarni, Navi Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune-1, Pune

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are rejected as unadmitted being non-maintainable

ITA 1355/PUN/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi () Ita Nos. 1352 To 1357/Pun/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 To 2022-23 Anand Bhalchandra Kulkarni, Pr. Cit, Pune-1, G/701 Tulip Afnhb Camp Pmt Building, Swargate, Jalvvayu Vishar Phase-1, Plot-20, Vs. Pune-411037. Sec 20, Kharghar-410210. Pan No. Aanpk 7550 Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Lokesh K Gandhi (ThroughFor Respondent: Mr. Mirtyunjay Barnwal (Through
Section 115VSection 119Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 132Section 132ASection 143Section 147Section 153ASection 153C

condonation of delay in filing the revised return of income for assessment years 2017-18 to 2022-23 under the provisions of section 119(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). The Ld. PCIT vide impugned order rejected such request for condoning the delay ... relevant material on record. At the outset, we find that this order has been passed by the Ld. PCIT in terms of section 119(2)(b) of the Act. The orders, against which appeals could be preferred before the ITAT, have been specified in section

Anand Bhalchandra Kulkarni, Navi Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune-1, Pune

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are rejected as unadmitted being non-maintainable

ITA 1354/PUN/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi () Ita Nos. 1352 To 1357/Pun/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 To 2022-23 Anand Bhalchandra Kulkarni, Pr. Cit, Pune-1, G/701 Tulip Afnhb Camp Pmt Building, Swargate, Jalvvayu Vishar Phase-1, Plot-20, Vs. Pune-411037. Sec 20, Kharghar-410210. Pan No. Aanpk 7550 Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Lokesh K Gandhi (ThroughFor Respondent: Mr. Mirtyunjay Barnwal (Through
Section 115VSection 119Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 132Section 132ASection 143Section 147Section 153ASection 153C

condonation of delay in filing the revised return of income for assessment years 2017-18 to 2022-23 under the provisions of section 119(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). The Ld. PCIT vide impugned order rejected such request for condoning the delay ... relevant material on record. At the outset, we find that this order has been passed by the Ld. PCIT in terms of section 119(2)(b) of the Act. The orders, against which appeals could be preferred before the ITAT, have been specified in section

Anand Bhalchandra Kulkarni, Navi Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune-1, Pune

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are rejected as unadmitted being non-maintainable

ITA 1353/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi () Ita Nos. 1352 To 1357/Pun/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 To 2022-23 Anand Bhalchandra Kulkarni, Pr. Cit, Pune-1, G/701 Tulip Afnhb Camp Pmt Building, Swargate, Jalvvayu Vishar Phase-1, Plot-20, Vs. Pune-411037. Sec 20, Kharghar-410210. Pan No. Aanpk 7550 Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Lokesh K Gandhi (ThroughFor Respondent: Mr. Mirtyunjay Barnwal (Through
Section 115VSection 119Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 132Section 132ASection 143Section 147Section 153ASection 153C

condonation of delay in filing the revised return of income for assessment years 2017-18 to 2022-23 under the provisions of section 119(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). The Ld. PCIT vide impugned order rejected such request for condoning the delay ... relevant material on record. At the outset, we find that this order has been passed by the Ld. PCIT in terms of section 119(2)(b) of the Act. The orders, against which appeals could be preferred before the ITAT, have been specified in section

Anand Bhalchandra Kulkarni, Navi Mumbai vs. Pricipal Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune-1, Pune

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are rejected as unadmitted being non-maintainable

ITA 1352/PUN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi () Ita Nos. 1352 To 1357/Pun/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 To 2022-23 Anand Bhalchandra Kulkarni, Pr. Cit, Pune-1, G/701 Tulip Afnhb Camp Pmt Building, Swargate, Jalvvayu Vishar Phase-1, Plot-20, Vs. Pune-411037. Sec 20, Kharghar-410210. Pan No. Aanpk 7550 Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Lokesh K Gandhi (ThroughFor Respondent: Mr. Mirtyunjay Barnwal (Through
Section 115VSection 119Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 132Section 132ASection 143Section 147Section 153ASection 153C

condonation of delay in filing the revised return of income for assessment years 2017-18 to 2022-23 under the provisions of section 119(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). The Ld. PCIT vide impugned order rejected such request for condoning the delay ... relevant material on record. At the outset, we find that this order has been passed by the Ld. PCIT in terms of section 119(2)(b) of the Act. The orders, against which appeals could be preferred before the ITAT, have been specified in section

Parth Pragati Mandal, Sabarkantha vs. The ITO(Exemption), Palanpur

In the result, appeal preferred by the appellant is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 882/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 882/Ahd/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19) Parth Pragati Mandal The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ 19, Umiya Parivar Society, (Exemption) Vs. Valasana Road, Idar, Palanpur Sabarkantha – 383430, Gujarat "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabtp4353N (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Tej Shah, A.R. अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri C S Sharma, Sr. Dr 21/02/2024 Date Of Hearing 23/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy - Jm: The Instant Appeal Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 05.09.2023 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Arising Out Of The Order Dated 13.09.2021 Passed By The Ao, Nfac, Delhi, Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’), Raising A Demand Of Rs.2,30,409/- For Assessment Year 2018-19, Whereby & Whereunder The Appeal Filed By The

For Respondent: Shri C S Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 80G(5)

apply before the concerned authority being the Board under ITA No. 882/Ahd/2023 [Parth Pragati Mandal vs. ITO(E)] A.Y.– 2018-19 - 6 – Section 119(2)(b) of the Act for approval to file ITR-7 within 15 days from the date of passing of this order

S 279 Kottathupatti Pacs Limited, Salem vs. ITO, Ward-1(6), Salem

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1631/CHNY/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Feb 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, IRS, JCIT
Section 119Section 119(2)(b)Section 143(1)Section 80P(2)

Intimation under Section 143(1) of the Act dated 02/11/2022 without waiting for the outcome of the Delay Condonation Petition filed under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act before the CBDT on 25/04/2022, despite mentioning this fact in the Impugned Order’’. I have heard the rival contention and perused

Sri Ramalingeswara Swamy Temple, Hyderabad vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, Exemption Ward-1(4), Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 492/HYD/2023[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Jan 2024AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.491 & 492/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2019-20 & 2020-21) Sri Ramalingeswara Swamy Vs. Asstt. Director Of Income Temple, Keesara Gutta Tax, Hyderabad Exemption Ward-1(4) Pan:Aaeas2164C Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri S. Srikanth, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. Sheetal Sarin, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 10/01/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 12/01/2024

For Appellant: Shri S. Srikanth, CAFor Respondent: : Smt. Sheetal Sarin, DR
Section 10Section 10(23)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

Income-tax to condone delay in filing Form 10B and the Commissioner (Appeals) had no power to condone such delay as per section 119(2)(b). The relevant portion of the said judgment is quoted hereunder: “Considering the hardship faced by the assessee, the CBDT issued Circular No.7/2018, authorizing Commissioner

Sri Ramalingeswara Swamy Temple, Hyderabad vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, Exemption Ward-1(4), Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 491/HYD/2023[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Jan 2024AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.491 & 492/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2019-20 & 2020-21) Sri Ramalingeswara Swamy Vs. Asstt. Director Of Income Temple, Keesara Gutta Tax, Hyderabad Exemption Ward-1(4) Pan:Aaeas2164C Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri S. Srikanth, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. Sheetal Sarin, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 10/01/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 12/01/2024

For Appellant: Shri S. Srikanth, CAFor Respondent: : Smt. Sheetal Sarin, DR
Section 10Section 10(23)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

Income-tax to condone delay in filing Form 10B and the Commissioner (Appeals) had no power to condone such delay as per section 119(2)(b). The relevant portion of the said judgment is quoted hereunder: “Considering the hardship faced by the assessee, the CBDT issued Circular No.7/2018, authorizing Commissioner

DCIT, Circle, Yamunanagar vs. M/S Symbiosis Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd., Yamunanagar

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 326/CHANDI/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: The Due Date As Prescribed In Section 139(1) Of The I.T. Act, 1961 Whereas The Assessee Has Filed Its Return Of Income After The Due Date.

For Appellant: Shri Dhruv Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sarabjeet Singh, CIT-DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 80ASection 80I

Sitaldas K. Motwani Vs Director General of Income Tax (International Taxation) New Delhi” 323 ITR 223 (Bom.), the phrase “genuine hardships” in Section 119(2)(b) of the ITA 326/CHD/2019 A.Y. 2014-15 26 Act ought to be construed liberally; that as observed by the said High Court, when substantial

Gyandeep Charitable Trust, Ahmedabad vs. The ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru Now the ITO, Ward-3(3)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 555/AHD/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Jan 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 555/Ahd/2023 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: 2021-2022 Gyandeep Charitable Trust, A.D.I.T, A/204, Ashutosh Apt., Vs. Cpc, B/H. St. Xaviers School, Bengaluru, Naranpura, Now Ahmedabad-380013. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(1), Pan: Aactg0352M Ahmedabad.

For Appellant: Shri S.N Divatia, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr.D.R
Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)(b)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)

आयकरअपीलीयअधिकरण, अहमदाबादनयायपीी IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘’ SMC’’ BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No

Konti Infrapower & Multiventures Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 6 (1) (2), Mumbai

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

ITA 3172/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jan 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyalkonti Infrapower & Vs. Ito – 6(1)(2), Multiventures Pvt Ltd 5Th Floor, 18Th Floor, A Wing Aayakar Bhavan, Marathon Futurex, N.M M.K.Road, Joshi Marg, Lowerparel, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400013. Pan/Gir No. : Aaccc0699J Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri.Jayesh Chobisa.Ar Respondent By : Shi.P.D. Chougule. Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 27.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 01.01.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)/Cit(A), Delhi Passed U/Sec 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri.Jayesh Chobisa.ARFor Respondent: Shi.P.D. Chougule. Sr.DR
Section 115BSection 115JSection 119(2)(b)

Board of Direct Taxes Circular.No.19/2023. New Delhi the 23rd October 2023 Konti Infrapower & Multiventures Pvt Ltd, Mumbai “Sub: Condonation of delay under section 119(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in filing of Form No. 10-IC for Assessment Year 2021-22-Reg. In exercise ... 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 17.03.2022 condoned the delay in filing of Form No. 10-IC as per Rule 21AE of the Income-tax Rules

Kuruhinasetty Souharda Credit Cooperative Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-5(2)(1), Banglore

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

ITA 909/BANG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Kuruhinasetty Souharda Credit Vs. Ito, Co-Operative Ltd., Ward – 5(2)(1), No.5, Sakamma Bhavana, Bengaluru. Vishveshwarapura, Bengaluru – 560 004. Pan : Aabak 4862 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Tarun Kothari, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Subramanian S, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 02.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.01.2024

For Appellant: Shri. Tarun Kothari, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80ASection 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)

year ended 31.03.2018, written submissions before the CIT(A), CBDT circular No.13/2023 dated 26.07.2023, copy of the assessee’s application filed under section 119(2)(b) of the Act, before the CCIT, etc. The learned AR submitted that assessee has filed a petition for condoning the delay in filing ... which was introduced w.e.f. 01.04.2018), assessee cannot be allowed deduction under section 80P of the Act. However, assessee has filed application under section 119(2)(b) of the Act before the CCIT, Bangalore, for condonation of delay in filing the return of income. In this context, learned AR had relied