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)

condonation of delay in 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

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)

condonation of delay in 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

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)

condonation of delay in 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

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)

condonation of delay in 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

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)

condonation of delay in 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

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.

section 119(2)(b) for condonation of delay in filing Form 10B. However, said application was rejected. The Hon'ble High

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

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

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

SHREE HARSANIJI PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST,MEHSANA vs. THE ITO (EXEMPTION), PALANPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2015-16 Shree Harsaniji Public Charitable Trust Ito (Exemption) 32, Shiv Society Part-2 Vs Palanpur. Nr.B.K. Cinema Mehsana 384 002. Pan : Aaats 7750 B.

delay in filing Form No.10 may be condoned under section 119(2)(b) of the Act. In this connection, the assessee

MEDIP HEALTHTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2020-21 M/S.Medip Healthtech Pvt. Ltd. The Dcit, Sf-210, Devashish Business Park Vs. Cir.2(1)(1) Nr.Popular Domeinn, Satellite Vejalpur Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad. Pan : Aakcm 0291 J (Applicant) (Responent) : Ms.Vinata Bhura, Ar Assessee By : Shri Veerabadram Vislavath, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/10/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/10/2025

section 119(2)(b) before the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Ahmedabad, seeking condonation of delay in filing Form

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

119(2)(b) of the Act, condoning the delay in filing of Form 10B. Such grant of approval 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

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

section 119(2)(b) for condonation of delay. The Assessing Officer, therefore, held that the assessee had failed to comply

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

119(2)(b) of the Act, condoning the delay in filing of Form\n10B. Such grant of approval 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

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)

119(2)(b) to condone delay in filing Form 10B. Thus, Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed assessee's appeal holding that assessee had remedy before jurisdictional Commissioner Pr Commissioner/Director of Income-tax for condoning delay in fling Form 108 and claiming benefit of section

VOLARK LEASING IFSC PVT. LTD,GUJARAT vs. ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE, GANDHINAGAR, GUJARAT, GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Smt. Annapurna Gupta

condonation of delay in compliance with any provision of the Act. Section 119(2) reads as follows: Section 119(2) (a) … (b

KARMA RECRUITMENTS PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: The Cit(A) But Without Any Success. Learned Cit(A) Rejected The Claim Of The Assessee By Observing As Follows:-

condonation of delay in compliance, may invoke the provisions of section 119(2)(a) of the Act. If no time stipulation was in the first instance applicable to the return that is filed by the petitioner, the provisions of section 119(2)(b

KARMA RECRUITMENTS PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: The Cit(A) But Without Any Success. Learned Cit(A) Rejected The Claim Of The Assessee By Observing As Follows:-

condonation of delay in compliance, may invoke the provisions of section 119(2)(a) of the Act. If no time stipulation was in the first instance applicable to the return that is filed by the petitioner, the provisions of section 119(2)(b

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

In the result, the appeal of the asessee is allowed

condonation application filed u/s 119(2)(b) of the Act before the Pr. CIT(Exemptions). New Delhi. In this regard, kind attention is drawn to the provisions of section 12A of the Act wherein conditions for applicability of sections 11 and 12 of the Act are laid down. Mainly, attention is drawn to the provisions of section 124(1)(b

KOTH GROUP CO.OP. URBAN CREDIT SOCIETY LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: The Appellate Authority & Therefore, The Addl/Jcit(A) Ought To Have Deleted The Adjustment Made U/S 143(1)(A)(V) By Ao.Cpc & Allowed The Deduction U/S 80P(2)(A)(I) Of Rs.5,20,000/-.

119(2)(b) to condone the delay, that does not deprive the appellant to pursue the remedy by way of appeal before the appellate authority and therefore, the Addl/JCIT(A) ought to have deleted the adjustment made u/s 143(1)(a)(v) by AO.CPC and allowed the deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of Rs.5,20,000/-. 5. That