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

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

delay in filing the Form No.10B for A.Y. 2020-21 was condoned by the ld. CIT(E), Ahmedabad vide his order u/s. 119(2)(b) of the Act dated 10.01.2023. Further, the assessee had filed its return for A.Y. 2020-21 within the time limit as available u/s.139(4) of the Act. He submitted that the time limit of filing

SHRI MAHESH P. GANDHI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT., CIRCLE-10,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1022 To 1025/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: (1992-1993 To 1995-1996) Shri Mahesh P. Gandhi, A.C.I.T., D-404, 5Th Floor, Vs. Circle-10, Dharnidhar Tower, Ahmedabad. Paldi, Ahmedabad.

condone the delay of 2337 days in filing the appeal and proceed to hear the appeal on merit for the adjudication. 13. Coming to issue raised by the assessee in the grounds of appeal. The issue in the instant case raises two situations as detailed under: 1- Whether the assessment made under section 143(3) read with section

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

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

139(1) - Assessee filed an application under section 119(2)(b) of the Act praying for condonation of delay in filing

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:

139(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

condone delay in filing returns or audit reports, and directed the assessee to approach the competent authority for such relief. In view of this finding, the CIT(Appeals) concluded that the defect in the instant case was not curable through the appellate process and accordingly dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. 5. The assessee is in appeal before

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 139(1) of the Act, and no application for condonation of delay had been filed before the jurisdictional Commissioner

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.

139(1) - Assessee filed an application under section 119(2)(b) of the Act praying for condonation of delay in filing

DARED SEVA SAHKARI MANDALI LIMITED,BHAVNAGAR, GUJARAT vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), BHAVNAGAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad Has Arisen From The Separate Appellate

condoned either by the statutory authorities or by the courts.” 4.3 The ld. CIT(A) held that claim of deduction u/s. 80P claimed by the assessee in the return of income not filed u/s. 139(1) of the Act cannot be allowed, and since the assessee has filed return of income belatedly beyond the due date prescribed u/s 139

DARED SEVA SAHKARI MANDALI LIMITED,BHAVANAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), BHAVNAGAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad Has Arisen From The Separate Appellate

condoned either by the statutory authorities or by the courts.” 4.3 The ld. CIT(A) held that claim of deduction u/s. 80P claimed by the assessee in the return of income not filed u/s. 139(1) of the Act cannot be allowed, and since the assessee has filed return of income belatedly beyond the due date prescribed u/s 139

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)

condone such delay. Accordingly, the Gujarat High Court directed that the order of rectification under section 154 be quashed 7.3 In the case of JCIT v. Gujarat Energy Development Agency154 taxmann.com 348 (Ahmedabad - Trib.), the ITAT held that where assessee, a charitable trust, filed audit report in Form No. 10B during assessment proceedings, Assessing Officer could not have denied exemption

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

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

CONDONATION OF DELAY SECTION 119(2)(b) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 IN FILING OF FORM NO. 10 AND FORM NO. 9A FOR AY 2016-17 CIRCULAR NO. 7/2018 [F.NO.197/55/2018-ITA-I], DATED 20-12-2018 Under the provisions of section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereafter 'Act') the primary condition for grant of exemption to trust

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)

139 taxmann.com 28 (Pune-Trib.) The issue in the captioned case is related to delay in filing of Form no. 10B audit report, provision of which and requirement under such provision is different than that of Form no. 10 and hence is not applicable to the present case. 9. Chandraprabhuji Maharaj Jain v. DCIT, (Exemptions), Chennai [2019] 110 taxmann.com

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)

139 taxmann.com 28 (Pune-Trib.) The issue in the captioned case is related to delay in filing of Form no. 10B audit report, provision of which and requirement under such provision is different than that of Form no. 10 and hence is not applicable to the present case. 9. Chandraprabhuji Maharaj Jain v. DCIT, (Exemptions), Chennai [2019] 110 taxmann.com

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)

139 taxmann.com 28 (Pune-Trib.) The issue in the captioned case is related to delay in filing of Form no. 10B audit report, provision of which and requirement under such provision is different than that of Form no. 10 and hence is not applicable to the present case. 9. Chandraprabhuji Maharaj Jain v. DCIT, (Exemptions), Chennai [2019] 110 taxmann.com

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)

139 taxmann.com 28 (Pune-Trib.) The issue in the captioned case is related to delay in filing of Form no. 10B audit report, provision of which and requirement under such provision is different than that of Form no. 10 and hence is not applicable to the present case. 9. Chandraprabhuji Maharaj Jain v. DCIT, (Exemptions), Chennai [2019] 110 taxmann.com

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)

139 taxmann.com 28 (Pune-Trib.) The issue in the captioned case is related to delay in filing of Form no. 10B audit report, provision of which and requirement under such provision is different than that of Form no. 10 and hence is not applicable to the present case. 9. Chandraprabhuji Maharaj Jain v. DCIT, (Exemptions), Chennai [2019] 110 taxmann.com

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)

139 taxmann.com 28 (Pune-Trib.) The issue in the captioned case is related to delay in filing of Form no. 10B audit report, provision of which and requirement under such provision is different than that of Form no. 10 and hence is not applicable to the present case. 9. Chandraprabhuji Maharaj Jain v. DCIT, (Exemptions), Chennai [2019] 110 taxmann.com

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.

condone the delay and treat the return as a valid return. 11. In our considered view, the AO as well as CIT(A) are not ready to follow 67 years old Circular and the provisions viz. sub-section (9) of section 139