← All Phrases

“Section 119(1)”

Section References (mined)Section 119Section 119(1)92 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

SIDDHI VINAYAK SHIKSHA PRASAR EVAM SAMAJ KALYAN SAMITI,GWALIOR vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), BHOPAL

In the result, the both the appeals ITA No

ITA 579/AGR/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Agra20 Feb 2026AY 2025-26

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

Section 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G(5)(iv)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE : SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUNIL KUMAR

SIDDHI VINAYAK SHIKSHA PRASAR EVAM SAMAJ KALYAN SAMITI ,GWALIOR vs. CIT(EXTEMPTION) , BHOPAL

In the result, the both the appeals ITA No

ITA 578/AGR/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Agra20 Feb 2026AY 2025-26

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

Section 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G(5)(iv)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE : SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUNIL KUMAR

SHRI ACHLESHWAR MAHADEVJI JI SARVJANIK NIYAS,GWALIOR vs. CIT(E), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 417/AGR/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Agra16 Feb 2026AY 2025-26

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year : 2025-26 Shri Achleshwar Mahadev Ji V Cit (Exemption) Sarvajanik Nyas, Sanatan Bhopal Dharm Mandir Road Gwalior- 474 001 Pan : Aahts1225J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 80GSection 80G(5)(iii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE : SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUNIL KUMAR

PROFORM INTERIORS PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DCIT CC-20, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals for Assessment Years 2013-14 to 2022-23 in ITA

ITA 2708/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalita Nos. 4153 & 4008/Del/2025 (Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2018-19) Dcit, Proform Interiors Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-20, Ground Floor, Jmd Regent Room No. 269A, 2Nd Floor, Vs. Plaza, Mg Road, Gurgaon, Ara Centre, Jhandewalan Haryana-122001. Extn., Delhi-110055. Pan-Aahcs5999J

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH

AADARSH SURANA, CHENNAI,CHENNAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1840/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Dec 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri. R.Venkata Raman, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 47Section 68

Supreme Court in UCO Bank v. CIT [1999] 237 ITR 889 (SC) noted as under: - "....What is the status of these circulars ? Section 119(1) of the Act provides that "The Board may, from time to time, issue orders, instructions and directions to other income-tax authorities

HYDRISE FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED,UTTAR PRADESH, INDIA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA, AGRA, UTTAR PRADESH, INDIA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 87/AGR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Agra04 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh(Through Virtual Hearing)

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain, CIT DR
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153D

issue in dispute which are reproduced below:- “20. As regards Section 119 of the Act as noticed above, we find that while Section 119(1) of the Act, restrains the Board from issuing any instructions to subordinate authorities, which may lay down instructions of such a nature requiring the Income

HYDRISE FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED,NOIDA, UTTAR PRADESH, INDIA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA, AGRA, UTTAR PRADESH, INDIA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 86/AGR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra04 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh(Through Virtual Hearing)

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain, CIT DR
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153D

issue in dispute which are reproduced below:- “20. As regards Section 119 of the Act as noticed above, we find that while Section 119(1) of the Act, restrains the Board from issuing any instructions to subordinate authorities, which may lay down instructions of such a nature requiring the Income

NAGAHAT TEA ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1, JORHAT

ITA 20/GTY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati17 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 119(1)Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 139(9)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 80

provisions of section 119(2)(b) for denying condonation of delay in filing form 10CCB without first considering the proviso (b) to section 119(1). 3. That the Ld. ADDL/JCIT (A) FARIDABAD, NFAC summarily rejected the appeal mechanically without going through the various case laws/ judgments of Apex Court/High Court

NAGAHAT TEA ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1, JORHAT

ITA 19/GTY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati17 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 119(1)Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 139(9)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 80

provisions of section 119(2)(b) for denying condonation of delay in filing form 10CCB without first considering the proviso (b) to section 119(1). 3. That the Ld. ADDL/JCIT (A) FARIDABAD, NFAC summarily rejected the appeal mechanically without going through the various case laws/ judgments of Apex Court/High Court

NAGAHAT TEA ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1, JORHAT

ITA 18/GTY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati17 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 119(1)Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 139(9)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 80

provisions of section 119(2)(b) for denying condonation of delay in filing form 10CCB without first considering the proviso (b) to section 119(1). 3. That the Ld. ADDL/JCIT (A) FARIDABAD, NFAC summarily rejected the appeal mechanically without going through the various case laws/ judgments of Apex Court/High Court

SRI SRINIVASA EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BENGALURU

ITA 940/BANG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Nov 2025AY 2021-22
For Appellant: Shri M.V Prasad, CA & Shri KS Rajendra KumarFor Respondent: Shri Muthu Shankar, CIT &
Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 25Section 250Section 8

protect the rights of the assessee by preventing\nunnecessary prolongation of restraint orders. They are binding on all\nincome-tax authorities as per section 119(1) of the Act and the settled\nlaw laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in several cases, including\nUCO Bank ... that the rights of taxpayers are not prejudiced by prolonged\nrestraint on their property. The circulars and instructions issued by the\nBoard under section 119(1) of the Act are binding on all income-tax\nauthorities, as repeatedly held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and\nvarious Hon’ble High

SRI SRINIVASA EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE

ITA 939/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Nov 2025AY 2020-21
For Appellant: \nShri M.V Prasad, CA & Shri KS Rajendra KumarFor Respondent: \nShri Muthu Shankar, CIT &
Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 25Section 250Section 8

protect the rights of the assessee by preventing\nunnecessary prolongation of restraint orders. They are binding on all\nincome-tax authorities as per section 119(1) of the Act and the settled\nlaw laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in several cases, including\nUCO Bank ... that the rights of taxpayers are not prejudiced by prolonged\nrestraint on their property. The circulars and instructions issued by the\nBoard under section 119(1) of the Act are binding on all income-tax\nauthorities, as repeatedly held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and\nvarious Hon’ble High

YELAMARTHI SATYA ANAND,CHENNAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAT CIRCLE - 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

ITA 74/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Aug 2025AY 2020-21
For Appellant: Shri R. Venkata Raman, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl.CIT

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'सी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL `C' BENCH, CHENNAI श्री मनु कुमार गिरि, न्यायिक

KRUPA VILAS GAU SEVA TRUST,KUTCH vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

ITA 163/RJT/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot24 Mar 2025

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No. 162/Rjt/2023 (Assessment Year: Na) (Hybrid Hearing) Krupa Vilas Gau Seva Trust, Vs. Cit(Exemption), Kutch. Ahmedabad. Anjar, Anjar Road, Bhimasar Taluka Anjar, Kutch-370240. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaetk8746K (अपीलार्थी/Assessee) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No. 163/Rjt/2023 (Assessment Year: Na) (Hybrid Hearing) Krupa Vilas Gau Seva Trust, Vs. Cit(Exemption), Kutch. Ahmedabad. Anjar, Anjar Road, Bhimasar Taluka Anjar, Kutch-370240. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaetk8746K (अपीलार्थी/Assessee) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) निर्धारितीकीओरसे/Assessee By : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ar राजस्वकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing : 09/01/2025 घोषणाकीतारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 24/03/2025 1 | Page

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT DR
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G(5)

Income-Tax Rules, 1962 w.e.f. 01.04.2021, the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), in exercise of its powers under Section 119(1) of the Act, extends the due date for electronic filing of such Form as under: (i) The application for registration or approval under Section

KRUPA VILAS GAU SEVA TRUST,KUTCH vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 162/RJT/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot24 Mar 2025

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 162/Rjt/2023 (Assessment Year: Na) (Hybrid Hearing)

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT DR
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G(5)

Income-Tax Rules, 1962 w.e.f. 01.04.2021, the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), in exercise of its powers under Section 119(1) of the Act, extends the due date for electronic filing of such Form as under: (i) The application for registration or approval under Section

M/S. UTTARAKHAND PURV SAINIK KALYAN NIGAM LTD.,DEHRADUN vs. ITO, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 725/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun19 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2013-14] M/S Uttrakhand Purv Ito,Ward-2(5), Sainik Kalyan Nigam Ltd. Aayakar Bhawan,13-A, Subhash (Upnl) Vs Road, Dehradun Uttrakhand- Station Sub Area, Garhi 248003 Cantt, Dehradun-248003 Pan-Aaacu7129D Assessee Revenue Assessee By Shri Tarandeep Singh, Adv. Revenue By Shri Amar Pal Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 31.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19.03.2025

Section 10Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘DB’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BRAJESH

STAYAM COMPUTER SERVICES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ADDL. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Assessee

ITA 24/HYD/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Mar 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri AV Raghuram, AdvocateFor Respondent: MS. M. Narmada, CIT-DR
Section 119

No.63 of this judgment, stands answered accordingly:- a) So far as the question whether the respondents were justified in rejecting the application under Section 119(1) of the Income Tax Act is answered in the negative holding that the rejection of the said application was bad in law and also

ADDL. CIT, HYDERABAD vs. M/S SATYAM COMPUTER SERVICES LTD., HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Assessee

ITA 1299/HYD/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Mar 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri AV Raghuram, AdvocateFor Respondent: MS. M. Narmada, CIT-DR
Section 119

No.63 of this judgment, stands answered accordingly:- a) So far as the question whether the respondents were justified in rejecting the application under Section 119(1) of the Income Tax Act is answered in the negative holding that the rejection of the said application was bad in law and also

SATYAM COMPUTER SERVICES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. THE ACIT CENTRAL RANGE-3, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Assessee

ITA 1255/HYD/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Mar 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri AV Raghuram, AdvocateFor Respondent: MS. M. Narmada, CIT-DR
Section 119

No.63 of this judgment, stands answered accordingly:- a) So far as the question whether the respondents were justified in rejecting the application under Section 119(1) of the Income Tax Act is answered in the negative holding that the rejection of the said application was bad in law and also

Showing 1–20 of 92 · Page 1 of 5

Section 119(1) — 92 judgments | BharatTax | BharatTax