← 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)

Ambaradi Seva Sahkari Mandali Ltd., Ambaradi, Dist. Amreli vs. The DCIT(CPC), Bangaluru, Bengaluru

In the result, all the 4 appeals are allowed

ITA 186/RJT/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot10 Feb 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri D.M. Rindani, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr. DR &
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(1)(c)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(2)(e)

only remedy to the solution lies in the machinery provisions of the Act rather than 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 matters. The provisions of section 119(2)(b) are reproduced ... beyond the due date as provided in Section 139(1) of the Act. As discussed earlier the remedy to the issue lies in section 119(2)(b). The current provisions of section 143(1)(a) allows an Assessing Officer to make prima-facie adjustment of disallowance of deduction claimed

DCIT, Hisar vs. M/S Synergy Waste Management Pvt. Ltd., Hisar

In the result, all the five captioned appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5704/DEL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Ramesh Goyal, CA &For Respondent: Ms Kajal Singh, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 119Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 170Section 170(1)Section 44ASection 801ASection 80I

Assessing Officer disregarded revised returns on ground that same were filed late and no condonation of delay had been obtained in accordance with section 119(2)(b) - However, it was found that provisions of section 119(2)(b) would not be applicable where an assessee had restructured his business ... Nos.5701-5704/Del/2016 would also be entitled to consider as to whether the petitioner's case would fall within one of the conditions stipulated under Section 119(2)(c).” So keeping in view the above facts your honour will find that the assessee has made all compliances in time

DCIT, Hisar vs. M/S Synergy Waste Management Pvt. Ltd., Hisar

In the result, all the five captioned appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5703/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Ramesh Goyal, CA &For Respondent: Ms Kajal Singh, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 119Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 170Section 170(1)Section 44ASection 801ASection 80I

Assessing Officer disregarded revised returns on ground that same were filed late and no condonation of delay had been obtained in accordance with section 119(2)(b) - However, it was found that provisions of section 119(2)(b) would not be applicable where an assessee had restructured his business ... Nos.5701-5704/Del/2016 would also be entitled to consider as to whether the petitioner's case would fall within one of the conditions stipulated under Section 119(2)(c).” So keeping in view the above facts your honour will find that the assessee has made all compliances in time

DCIT, Hisar vs. M/S Synergy Waste Management Pvt. Ltd., Hisar

In the result, all the five captioned appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5702/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Ramesh Goyal, CA &For Respondent: Ms Kajal Singh, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 119Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 170Section 170(1)Section 44ASection 801ASection 80I

Assessing Officer disregarded revised returns on ground that same were filed late and no condonation of delay had been obtained in accordance with section 119(2)(b) - However, it was found that provisions of section 119(2)(b) would not be applicable where an assessee had restructured his business ... Nos.5701-5704/Del/2016 would also be entitled to consider as to whether the petitioner's case would fall within one of the conditions stipulated under Section 119(2)(c).” So keeping in view the above facts your honour will find that the assessee has made all compliances in time

DCIT, Hisar vs. M/S Synergy Waste Management Pvt. Ltd., Hisar

In the result, all the five captioned appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5701/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Ramesh Goyal, CA &For Respondent: Ms Kajal Singh, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 119Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 170Section 170(1)Section 44ASection 801ASection 80I

Assessing Officer disregarded revised returns on ground that same were filed late and no condonation of delay had been obtained in accordance with section 119(2)(b) - However, it was found that provisions of section 119(2)(b) would not be applicable where an assessee had restructured his business ... Nos.5701-5704/Del/2016 would also be entitled to consider as to whether the petitioner's case would fall within one of the conditions stipulated under Section 119(2)(c).” So keeping in view the above facts your honour will find that the assessee has made all compliances in time

Tagore Shiksha Samiti, Jhunjhunu vs. ACIT, Circle (Exemption), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 425/JPR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jan 2023AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri S.S. Shekhawat, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik, CIT &
Section 11Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 12A(1)(b)Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 154

application seeking condonation of delay in filing audit report in Form 10B for the impugned A.Y. 2018-19 by invoking the provisions of Section 119(2) of the Act. 6.15 In order to get entitlement for claiming exemption of its income u/s 11 of the Act, it is mandatory ... stage either before the ITO or before the appellate authority 2.5 On the other hand, the ld. DR argued that the application under section 119(2)(b) of the Act was rejected by the CIT (Exemption) and subsequent to his order, an order u/s 154 of the Act was passed

Shri H.K. Suresh, Bengaluru vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 625/BANG/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Hemant Pai, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Vandana Ramachandan, CIT(TP1)(DR)(ITAT)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

statutory powers under section 119 of the Income- tax 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. Thus, the authority which wields the power for its own advantage

Barclays Capital Mauritius Limited (in Liquidation), Mumbai vs. JCIT (OSD) (It)-1(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 509/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.509/मुं/2022 ("न.व. 2015-16) Barclays Capital Mauritius Limited. (In Liquidation) C/O. Srbc & Associates Llp 14Th Floor, The Ruby, 29 Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar (West), Mumbai 400 028 Pan: Aaccb-4438-L ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (It)-1(2)(1),Mumbai, 18Th Floor, Room No.1811, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Ms.Jasmin Amalsadvala ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 06/09/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 02/12/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 31/01/2022 Passed U/S. 147 R.W.S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short ‘The Act’]For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2 2. Ms.Jasmin Amalsadvala Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Submitted At The Outset That She Is Not Pressing Ground No.1 Of Appeal Challenging Reassessment Proceedings.

For Appellant: Ms.Jasmin AmalsadvalaFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash
Section 147

than the facts dealt by the CBDT. That aspect of the material is, even if that be so, immaterial. The circulars issued under section 119(2), as the circular in question inherently is, bind the field authorities on what these circulars hold, and not on what could be the underlying

M/S Redisolve Software P Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT Cor Circle 5 (1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in I

ITA 524/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 254/Chny/2016 & 521 To 524/Chny/2018 Assessment Years:2010-11, 2009-10, 10-11, 11-12, 12-13 M/S. Redisolve Software P. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 18, Cenotaph 1St Street, Alwarpet, Income Tax, Chennai 600 035. Corporate Circle 5(1)/5(2), [Pan:Aadcr3467N] Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjunraj C.A. For Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 22.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: The Appeal Filed By The Assessee In I.T.A. No. 254/Chny/2016 For The Assessment Year 2010-11 Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax –Chennai-5, Chennai Dated 12.03.2015 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short]. The Appeals Filed By The Assessee In I.T.A. Nos. 521, 522, 523 & 524/Chny/2018 Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 3, Chennai Dated

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjunraj C.A. for Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT
Section 10ASection 119(2)(b)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 263

submitted that so far as assessment year 2010- 11 is concerned, the CBDT has condoned the delay and passed an order under section 119(2)(b) of the Act dated 10.10.2022 and directing the Assessing Officer to allow the claim of deduction under section ... directed the Assessing Officer to disallow the claim of deduction under section 10A of the Act. Now the CBDT by order under section 119(2)(b) of the Act dated 10.10.2022 for the assessment year 2010- 11 condoned the delay and also clarified that the condonation of delay in filing

M/S Redisolve Software P Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT Cor Circle 5 (1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in I

ITA 523/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 254/Chny/2016 & 521 To 524/Chny/2018 Assessment Years:2010-11, 2009-10, 10-11, 11-12, 12-13 M/S. Redisolve Software P. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 18, Cenotaph 1St Street, Alwarpet, Income Tax, Chennai 600 035. Corporate Circle 5(1)/5(2), [Pan:Aadcr3467N] Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjunraj C.A. For Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 22.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: The Appeal Filed By The Assessee In I.T.A. No. 254/Chny/2016 For The Assessment Year 2010-11 Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax –Chennai-5, Chennai Dated 12.03.2015 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short]. The Appeals Filed By The Assessee In I.T.A. Nos. 521, 522, 523 & 524/Chny/2018 Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 3, Chennai Dated

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjunraj C.A. for Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT
Section 10ASection 119(2)(b)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 263

submitted that so far as assessment year 2010- 11 is concerned, the CBDT has condoned the delay and passed an order under section 119(2)(b) of the Act dated 10.10.2022 and directing the Assessing Officer to allow the claim of deduction under section ... directed the Assessing Officer to disallow the claim of deduction under section 10A of the Act. Now the CBDT by order under section 119(2)(b) of the Act dated 10.10.2022 for the assessment year 2010- 11 condoned the delay and also clarified that the condonation of delay in filing

M/S Redisolve Software P Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT Cor Circle 5 (1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in I

ITA 522/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 254/Chny/2016 & 521 To 524/Chny/2018 Assessment Years:2010-11, 2009-10, 10-11, 11-12, 12-13 M/S. Redisolve Software P. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 18, Cenotaph 1St Street, Alwarpet, Income Tax, Chennai 600 035. Corporate Circle 5(1)/5(2), [Pan:Aadcr3467N] Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjunraj C.A. For Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 22.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: The Appeal Filed By The Assessee In I.T.A. No. 254/Chny/2016 For The Assessment Year 2010-11 Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax –Chennai-5, Chennai Dated 12.03.2015 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short]. The Appeals Filed By The Assessee In I.T.A. Nos. 521, 522, 523 & 524/Chny/2018 Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 3, Chennai Dated

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjunraj C.A. for Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT
Section 10ASection 119(2)(b)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 263

submitted that so far as assessment year 2010- 11 is concerned, the CBDT has condoned the delay and passed an order under section 119(2)(b) of the Act dated 10.10.2022 and directing the Assessing Officer to allow the claim of deduction under section ... directed the Assessing Officer to disallow the claim of deduction under section 10A of the Act. Now the CBDT by order under section 119(2)(b) of the Act dated 10.10.2022 for the assessment year 2010- 11 condoned the delay and also clarified that the condonation of delay in filing

M/S Redisolve Software P Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT Cor Circle 5 (1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in I

ITA 521/CHNY/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 254/Chny/2016 & 521 To 524/Chny/2018 Assessment Years:2010-11, 2009-10, 10-11, 11-12, 12-13 M/S. Redisolve Software P. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 18, Cenotaph 1St Street, Alwarpet, Income Tax, Chennai 600 035. Corporate Circle 5(1)/5(2), [Pan:Aadcr3467N] Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjunraj C.A. For Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 22.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: The Appeal Filed By The Assessee In I.T.A. No. 254/Chny/2016 For The Assessment Year 2010-11 Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax –Chennai-5, Chennai Dated 12.03.2015 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short]. The Appeals Filed By The Assessee In I.T.A. Nos. 521, 522, 523 & 524/Chny/2018 Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 3, Chennai Dated

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjunraj C.A. for Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT
Section 10ASection 119(2)(b)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 263

submitted that so far as assessment year 2010- 11 is concerned, the CBDT has condoned the delay and passed an order under section 119(2)(b) of the Act dated 10.10.2022 and directing the Assessing Officer to allow the claim of deduction under section ... directed the Assessing Officer to disallow the claim of deduction under section 10A of the Act. Now the CBDT by order under section 119(2)(b) of the Act dated 10.10.2022 for the assessment year 2010- 11 condoned the delay and also clarified that the condonation of delay in filing

Redisolve Software P Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in I

ITA 254/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 254/Chny/2016 & 521 To 524/Chny/2018 Assessment Years:2010-11, 2009-10, 10-11, 11-12, 12-13 M/S. Redisolve Software P. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 18, Cenotaph 1St Street, Alwarpet, Income Tax, Chennai 600 035. Corporate Circle 5(1)/5(2), [Pan:Aadcr3467N] Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjunraj C.A. For Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 22.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: The Appeal Filed By The Assessee In I.T.A. No. 254/Chny/2016 For The Assessment Year 2010-11 Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax –Chennai-5, Chennai Dated 12.03.2015 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short]. The Appeals Filed By The Assessee In I.T.A. Nos. 521, 522, 523 & 524/Chny/2018 Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 3, Chennai Dated

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjunraj C.A. for Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT
Section 10ASection 119(2)(b)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 263

submitted that so far as assessment year 2010- 11 is concerned, the CBDT has condoned the delay and passed an order under section 119(2)(b) of the Act dated 10.10.2022 and directing the Assessing Officer to allow the claim of deduction under section ... directed the Assessing Officer to disallow the claim of deduction under section 10A of the Act. Now the CBDT by order under section 119(2)(b) of the Act dated 10.10.2022 for the assessment year 2010- 11 condoned the delay and also clarified that the condonation of delay in filing

Awaaz Foundation, Mumbai vs. ACIT Trust Circle/CPC, Mumbai

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

ITA 1924/MUM/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1924/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2020-21) Acit, Trust Circle/Cpc, Awaaz Foundation, Mtnl Building, Peddar C/O- Sumaira Abdulali, 3, बिधम/ Road, Mumbai-400 026 Reshma Apartment, 13 Pali Vs. Hill Road, Near Petit School, Bandra (W) Mumbai-400 050 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aabta8994Q (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri N. R. Agarwal, Ld. Ar प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Manoj Sinha, Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 03.10.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 30.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Impugned Order Dated 26.07.2022, Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi In Relation To Intimation U/S 143(1) For Ay 2020-21. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

For Appellant: Shri N. R. Agarwal, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Sinha, Ld. DR
Section 10Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 288

such trust or institution for condoning the delay in filing Form No. 10B and in the exercise of the powers conferred under section 119(2) of the Act, the Central Board of Direct Taxes vide Circular No. 10/2019 dated 23rd May, 2019 and Circular No. 28/2019 dated 27th September ... Commissioners of Income-tax are hereby authorized to 6 I.T.A. No. 1924/Mum/2022 Awaaz Foundation admit such belated applications of condonation of delay under section 119(2) of the IT Act and decide on merits. 6. The Commissioners of Income-tax shall, while entertaining such belated applications in filing Form

Dy CIT CC-1(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Grasim Industries Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 41/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri. J.D Mistry, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anil Singh
Section 115OSection 115QSection 2

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ―G‖ BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM

Grasim Industries Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT, Central Circle-1(4), Mumbai

ITA 1935/MUM/2020[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri. J.D Mistry, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anil Singh
Section 115OSection 115QSection 2

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ―G‖ BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM

Xprize Foundation, Mumbai vs. Additional /Joint/Deputy/ACIT/Income Tax Officer, National E-Assessment Centre, Mumbai

In the result, the present appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2187/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2022AY 2018-19
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R.N. D‟souza
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(3)

view of the representations received by CBDT seeking condonation of delay in filing Form No. 9A and Form No. 10 under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act, Circular No.3 of 2020 [F.NO. 197/55/2018- ITA-I], dated 03.01.2020 was issued by CBDT whereby the Commissioners of Income-tax were authorized ... with the view to prevent hardship to the assessee ITA. No. 2187/Mum/2022 Assessment Year: 2018-19 and in exercise of 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

Intrado Ec India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. DCIT-Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 239/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, Jt. CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 143(3)Section 153Section 2CSection 40Section 92C

statutory powers under section 119 of the Income-tax 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. Thus, the authority which wields the power for its own advantage

Shri Namdeo Motiram Mangaonkar Charitable Trust, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) NFAC, Delhi

ITA 2363/MUM/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Nov 2022AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh ()

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 119(2)Section 143(1)Section 154

circular is to expedite the disposal of applications filed by trusts for condoning the delay, the Board had passed a general order under section 119(2)b by which the Commissioners have been authorised to admit belated applications under section 11(2) read with rule 17. Also, reliance is placed

Gangji Shamji Cheeda Charitable Trust, Mumbai vs. Exem. Ward 2(3), Mumbai

ITA 1528/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Ms. Mrugakshi Joshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Anil Gupta, D.R
Section 11Section 119(2)Section 12ASection 139Section 143(1)

such trusts or institutions for condoning the delay in filing Form no. 10B and in the exercise of the powers conferred under section 119(2) of the Act, the Central Board of Direct Taxes hereby directs that: The delay in fling of Form