ASH EDUCATION TRUST,MEHSANA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1 (EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

condoning the delay in filing Form 10B was also submitted by the assessee trust before Ld. CIT(A) during the course of hearing before him. However, Ld. CIT(A) upheld the denial of exemption under Section 11 of the Act on the ground that at the time of processing of return of income under Section143(1

ELECTRONICS & QUALITY DEVELOPMENT CENTRE,GANDHINAGAR vs. CPC, BENGALURU CURRENT JURIS. -THE DY.CIT, (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Ld. Pcit, Which Was Pending Consideration. Therefore Assessee Filed Appeal Before Ld. Cit(A) Which Was Dismissed Stating That The Ld. Cit(A) Does Not Have The Power To Condone The Delay, Thereby Confirmed The Addition Made By Cpc.

10B electronically in accordance with requirements of section 12A(1)(b) of the Act. The Assessee also filed an application under section 119(2)(b) for condonation of delay

HEALTH FOUNDATION & RESEARCH CENTRE,DAHOD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2, EXEMPTION, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

10B was not filed within the due date prescribed under section 139(1) of the Act, and no application for condonation of delay

ASH EDUCATION TRUST,MEHSANA vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-1 (EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

condoning the delay in filing Form 10B was\nalso submitted by the assessee trust before Ld. CIT(A) during the course\nof hearing before him. However, Ld. CIT(A) upheld the denial of\nexemption under Section 11 of the Act on the ground that at the time of\nprocessing of return of income under Section143(1

SHIKSHA FOUNDATION,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-2 (EXEMP), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section 11 for want of submission of Form No. 10B within due date on appeal Commissioner (Appeals) held that Form 10B shall be submitted electronically with effect from 1-4-2016 applicable for assessment year 2016-17 and as per CBDT Circular No 273. dated 3-6-1980 CBDT had authorized jurisdictional Commissioner/Director of Income-tax to condone delay

VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2 (EXEMP), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

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

1.e. prior to the amendment in Section 11(2) by Finance Act, 2015. 14.4. Thus Ld CIT DR submitted keeping in view the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Wipro Ltd. and the amendment in the concerned provision, it is clear that the time period provided under the law is not directory but mandatory and the said delay

VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2 (EXEMP), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

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

1.e. prior to the amendment in Section 11(2) by Finance Act, 2015. 14.4. Thus Ld CIT DR submitted keeping in view the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Wipro Ltd. and the amendment in the concerned provision, it is clear that the time period provided under the law is not directory but mandatory and the said delay

JT.CIT(E),CIRCLE -2 AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY , VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

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

1.e. prior to the amendment in Section 11(2) by Finance Act, 2015. 14.4. Thus Ld CIT DR submitted keeping in view the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Wipro Ltd. and the amendment in the concerned provision, it is clear that the time period provided under the law is not directory but mandatory and the said delay

JT.CIT(E), CIRCLE-2 AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY , VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

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

1.e. prior to the amendment in Section 11(2) by Finance Act, 2015. 14.4. Thus Ld CIT DR submitted keeping in view the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Wipro Ltd. and the amendment in the concerned provision, it is clear that the time period provided under the law is not directory but mandatory and the said delay

VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2 (EXEMP), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

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

1.e. prior to the amendment in Section 11(2) by Finance Act, 2015. 14.4. Thus Ld CIT DR submitted keeping in view the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Wipro Ltd. and the amendment in the concerned provision, it is clear that the time period provided under the law is not directory but mandatory and the said delay

JT.CIT(EXEMPTION)CIRCL-2 AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

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

1.e. prior to the amendment in Section 11(2) by Finance Act, 2015. 14.4. Thus Ld CIT DR submitted keeping in view the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Wipro Ltd. and the amendment in the concerned provision, it is clear that the time period provided under the law is not directory but mandatory and the said delay

RANDHEJA DUDH UTPADAK SAHAKARI MANDLI LTD.,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-3 NOW WARD-1, GANDHINAGAR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Guptaasstt. Year : 2017-18 Randheja Dudh Utpadak The Ito, Ward-3 Sahakari Mandli Ltd. Vs Now Ward-1 To-Randheja Gandhinagar. Tal: Gandhinagar Pin : 382 620 Pan : Aacar 5164 K (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri M.K. Patel, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Ketan Gajjar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 27/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short Referred To As Ld.Cit(A)] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 22.11.2021 Pertaining To Asst.Year 2017-18. 2. The Registry Has Notified That The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Barred By Limitation By 581 Days. In Order To Explain The Reasons For The Impugned Delay, The Ld.Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That The Cit(A)/Nfac Order Was Passed Against The Assessee On 22.11.2021. However, Due To Covid-19 Pandemic Limitation For Filing Appeal Before The Court Of Law Was Extended Till February, 2022. Therefore, After Expiry Of The Limitation For Filing Of The Appeal On Feb., 2022, The Assessee Was Required To File Appeal Within 60 Days Of The Same I.E. By April, 2022. But The Assessee Could File The Appeal On

condone the impugned delay of 581 days in filing appeal ITA No.649 /Ahd/2023 5 before the Tribunal, and proceed to take up the appeal of the assessee for adjudication on merit. 7. The grievance of the assessee against the impugned order are given in the grounds of appeal, which read as under: “1. That on facts

ASSOCIATION OF INDIA PANELBOARD MANUFACTURER,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT CPC , BENGLURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed

10B before concerned PCIT/CIT/DIT as provided u/s. 119(2)(b) of the Act. 6.1. There is recent Circular No. 7/2018 dated 20.12.2018 passed by the CBDT which reads as follows: SECTION 119 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 - CONDONATION OF DELAY SECTION 119(2)(b) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 IN FILING OF FORM NO. 10 AND FORM

SHRI MAHUDI MADHUPURI JAIN NSM BHOJANSHALA & PRASHADI BHAVAN,,MAHUDI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-2, EXEMPTION,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

10B was 15.02.2021. Delay was condoned by CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad vide order No. ITBA/COM/F/17/2022-23/1048595203(1) dated 10.01.2023. However the Return of Income has also been filed late on 31/3/2021 against the due date of 15/2/2021, which has not been condoned. It is a trite law that if a thing is said to be done in a particular manner, it shall

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

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.

section 12A (1)(b) required the appellant to file Form 10B before the due date of filing of return of income u/s 139(1) which in this case is 31.12.2021. If there is delay in filing Form 10B, delay can be regularised by making an application to CIT concerned for condonation

TRILOKNATH VATSALYA VATIKA,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT,CPC, BANGALORE PRESENT JAO- THE ITO, WARD-1 (EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1092/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Triloknath Vatsalya Vatika The Dy.Cit बनाम/ At Balva Cpc Bangalore. V/S. Nr. Tahuko Hotel Present Jao Kalol The Ito Ward-1(Exemption) Gandhinagar – 382 001 Ahmedabad-380 015 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aants 5604 B (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kushal Fofaria, Ar Revenue By : Shri R.P. Rastogi, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/10/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Siddhartha Nautiyal, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 10/03/2025 Passed By The Office Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeal Addl/Jcit(A)-Gwalior [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”), For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

1) of the Act. Since the appellant failed to furnish Form 10B within the prescribed time, the CPC was justified in denying exemption under sections 11 and 12. The CIT(Appeals) also referred to CBDT Circular No. 16/2022 dated 19.07.2022, which authorizes condonation of delay

RURAL DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION,ANAND vs. CPC, BENGALURU JURIS. AO- THE ITO, WARD-EXEMPTION, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.927/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2019-20 Rural Development Cpc, Bengaluru बनाम/ Foundation Juris.Ao – The Ito Ward- V/S. Aitc, 2Nd Floor Exemption Narayan Complex Vadodara – 390 007 Nr.Shubh Laxmi Shopping Centre Station Road Anand – 388 001 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aabtr 1090 C (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Arti N. Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rameshwar P. Meena, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/10/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Siddhartha Nautiyal, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 21/02/2025 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2019-2020. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: Rural Development Foundation Vs. Cpc, Bengaluru Juris Ao The Ito, Ward-Exemption Asst. Year : 2019-20

1,13,37,985/- and grant exemption as per law. However, the CPC, Bengaluru, rejected the rectification petition vide order dated 27.06.2023, holding that such an issue did not fall within the ambit of a “mistake apparent from record” under section 154 of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(Appeals

SHRI MANAV VIKAS FOUNDATION,CHAMARAJ, TL. VADHAVAN vs. ITO, WARD-2(EXEMP), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the asessee is allowed

delayed filing of Form 10B as provided for in section 12A(1)(b) is the denial of the benefit of section 11 which in the case of the appellant would be restricted to the claim u/s 11(1)(a) amounting Rs. 7,38,636/- and claim u/s 11(1)(d) being Capital expenditure amounting to Rs.3,02,379 since