“Section 119(1)(b)”

Section References (mined)Section 119Section 119(1)(b)3 judgments

DE vs. THAN TRUST,VADODARAVS.THE ITO, WARD- EXEMPTION, VADODARA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1729/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Apr 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Parin S Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Kumar Agarwal, Sr. D.R

Section 11Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 154Section 234A

exorbitant delay as the assessee was exercising its rights of filing the rectification application and also waited for the order passed under Section 119(1)(b) of the Act. The contention of the Ld. DR that the delay is deliberately does not have substantial support. Hence, the delay in filing

INCOME TAX OFFICER- 23(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. UTI ASSET MANAGEMENT COMPANY LIMITED EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2022/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2022/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2018-19) Ito, 23(3)(1), Mumbai V/S. Uti Asset Management 5Th Floor, Room No. 525A, बिधम Company Ltd. Employees Piramal Chambers, Parel, Provident Fund Mumbai-400012 5Th Floor Doaa, Uti Tower, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaatu2391J Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी

For Appellant: Shri Jayant Bhatt/Shri FaheemFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna

Section 10Section 10(25)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 250

revenue has not properly applied its mind to the facts of the case and has in the process completely overlooked the provisions of section 119(1)(b). True, no specific or express provision is engrafted in this section to deal with refund of TDS erroneously deducted when there is admittedly ... from the assessee, but then, this is precisely the reason, for enacting section 119(1)(b): this is in the nature of an inherent power granted to the Central Board of Direct Taxes to entrust any income-tax authority other than a Commissioner (Appeals) to admit an application or claim

ATINDRA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as 6

ITA 1141/KOL/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Aug 2024AY 2020-2021

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.1141/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Atindra Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. ………. Appellant (Pan: Aadcr0604F)) Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Kolkata ………… Respondent Appearances By: Divya Mohta, C.S Appeared For Appellant. Shri Nicholash Murmu, Addl. Cit, Dr Appeared For Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 22.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 29.08.2024 Order Per Dr. Manish Borad: This Appeal Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Year (In Short “Ay”) 2020-21 Is Directed Against The Order Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, (Appeals), Addl/Jcit(A)-13, Mumbai [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] Dated 18.03.2024 Arising Out Of The Intimation Framed U/S. 143(1) Of The Act By Acit, Cpc, Bengaluru Dated 19.08.2021. I.T.A. No. 1141/Kol/2024 Atindra Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Ay : 2020-21 2. The Only Grievance Of The Assessee Is That Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Cpc For Not Calculating The Tax On The Income Of The Assessee Under The New Regime U/S. 115Baa Of The Act.

Section 115BSection 119(1)(b)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, KOLKATA डॉ. मनीष बोरड, लेखा सद"य एवं "ी संजय सरमा, "ाियक सद