TATHAGAT,NEW DELHI vs. AO CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CENTER, INCOME TAX DEPATMENT BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Condonation of delay in filing Form No. 108)- Assessment year 2018-19- Assessee, a charitable institution registered under section 12AA. claimed exemption under section 11-on filing original return of Income had not filed Audit Report-immediately thereafter, assessee filed Audit Report in Form 10B

TATHAGAT,NEW DELHI vs. AO CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CENTER, INCOME TAX DEPATMENT BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Condonation of delay in filing Form No. 108)- Assessment year 2018-19- Assessee, a charitable institution registered under section 12AA. claimed exemption under section 11-on filing original return of Income had not filed Audit Report-immediately thereafter, assessee filed Audit Report in Form 10B

TATHAGAT,NEW DELHI vs. AO CENTRAL PROCESSING CENTER, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Condonation of delay in filing Form No. 108)- Assessment year 2018-19- Assessee, a charitable institution registered under section 12AA. claimed exemption under section 11-on filing original return of Income had not filed Audit Report-immediately thereafter, assessee filed Audit Report in Form 10B

B R HOSPITAL AND RESARCH INSTITUTE,NEW DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-EXEMPTION 1(3), DELHI

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

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

condone delay in filing form 10B, and Commissioner (Appeals) did not have any power under section 119(2)(b) to condone

MONICA GOLD PIPES PRIVATE LIMITED,KHASRA NO. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 16(2), C R BUILDING

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.3791 & 3792/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15

10B to be condoned - Held, yes [Paras 6, 7, 9 and 10] [In favour of assessee] III. Vijay Vishin Meghani vs-DCIT [2017] 86 taxmann.com 98 (Bombay HC) Section 253 of the Income-tax Act, 1961- Appellate Tribunal - Appeals to(Condonation of delay

MONICA GOLD PIPES PRIVATE LIMITED,KHASRA NO. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 16(2), C R BUILDING

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.3791 & 3792/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15

10B to be condoned - Held, yes [Paras 6, 7, 9 and 10] [In favour of assessee] III. Vijay Vishin Meghani vs-DCIT [2017] 86 taxmann.com 98 (Bombay HC) Section 253 of the Income-tax Act, 1961- Appellate Tribunal - Appeals to(Condonation of delay

SHAFA HOME,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, (EXEMPTION) WARD 2(1), NEW DELHI

Appeal stands allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

10B, as provided 3 under the provisions of the Act. He, however, submitted that the Form was furnished during the course of assessment proceedings. He submitted that even if the Form is submitted during the course of assessment proceedings the AO ought to have given benefit to the assessee. In support of this contention he has relied upon various case

INDIAN INSTITUTE OF FOREIGN TRADE,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE- EXEMPT 1(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh, Ita No:- 4944/Del/2025 (Assessment Year- 2023-24) Indian Institute Of Foreign Deputy Commissioner Of Trade, Income Tax, B-21, Iift Bhawan, Qutab Vs Circle Exempt 1(1), Institutional Area, Shaheed Delhi, Jeet Singh Marg, Civic Centre, New Delhi- New Delhi-110016. 110002. Pan- Aaati0438E Assessee Revenue

section 119(2) (b) of the Act in filing of Form 108 and taking into consideration the submission of the applicant, it is held that there was reasonable cause which prevented the applicant from filing the aforesaid Form 10B for A.Y 2023-24 within stipulated time. Accordingly, the delay in filing Form 10B for A.Y 2023-24 is hereby condoned

MANASBAL TRUST,NEW DELHI vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY (Judicial Member)

10B was not obtained and was not furnished though the accounts of the Appellant Trust were duly audited by a firm of practicing Chartered Accountants. 4. The CPC has resorted to denial of benefits of Section 11 of the Act without affording any opportunity of being heard to the Appellant. No show cause notice or a communication under Section

SAMPOORNA SEVA CHARITABLE TRUST,ALAKNANDA, SOUTH DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD EXEMP 2(1), DELHI, CIVIC CENTRE, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahmansampoorna Seva Charitable Trust, Vs. Ito, Ward Exempt 2(1), A – 23, Alaknanda, South Delhi, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 019. (Pan : Aaxts8701R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Shivam Malik, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.03.2025 Date Of Order : 04.06.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Orders Of The Learned Addl/Jcit (Appeals), Indore [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 08.10.2024 For The Assessment Years 2022-23 Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. That The Denial Of Exemption Of Rs.26,35,000/- Under Section 11 Of The Income Tax Act By The Cpc Merely Due To Delay In Filing Of Form 10B Is Bad In Law. 2. That Pursuant To The Faceless Appeal Scheme, The Ld. Add.Cit/Jcit Had No Jurisdiction To Pass The Order Under Section 250 Of The Act And, Therefore, The Impugned Order, Being Without Jurisdiction, Is Bad In Law. 3. That The Addition Of Rs.26,35,000/- To The Total Income Of The Appellant Trust & Consequent Tax Demand Created At Rs.7,40,310/- Is Arbitrary & Unjust.

condone the delay and accept the belated Form 10B. 2.2 Further, ld. AR submitted that mere delay in filing Form 10B cannot act as an impediment in the assessee seeking its lawfully entitled exemption and the assessee filed the same Form 10B before the appellate authority as well and the same is a matter of record. Furthermore, he submitted that

INCOME TAX OFFICER, NEW DELHI vs. ASCENT EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Ita No:- 3734/Del/2024 (Assessment Year: 2022)

condonation of delay in filing Form 10B rest with CIT (Exemptions) only and not with CIT(A) by relying on the decision of ITAT, Ahmedabad in the case of Association of India Panel Board Manufacturer (supra). ............ 8. On careful consideration in the above case, the assessee was claiming the benefit u/s 10B(8) of the Act as per the provisions

NARESH KUMAR VERMA

condonation of delay. The appeal and the said application will be considered and decided on merits. The petitioner in the present writ petition has impugned the order dated 14th December, 2012 passed by the tribunal on application under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. We have examined the order on merits and do not see any reason

SHAHEED BISHAN SINGH MEMORIAL SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL,MANSAROVER GARDEN, NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD EXEMPTION 2(1), NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2021-22] Shaheed Bishan Singh Memorial Vs Ito, Senior Secondary School, Ward(Exemption)-2(1), F-213, Mansarover Garden, New Delhi. New Delhi-110015. Pan-Aacts8314D Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Kurshid Ahmed, Adv. Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 29.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 29.05.2024 Order Per Kul Bharat, Jm : The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld.Cit(A)/Addl/Jcit(A), Madurai Dated 30.12.2023 For The Assessment Year 2021-22. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

10B whereas in the instant case it is delay in filing Form 10, but both pertain to section 11 exemption only and both are governed by CBDT Circular No. 273 only. As per CBDT Circular No. 273, dated 3-6-1980, CBDT had authorized only the jurisdictional Commissioner/Director of Income-tax to condone

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) DELHI vs. DELHI MAHARASHTRIYA EDUCATIONAL AND CULTURAL SOCIETY

The appeal is allowed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR

condonation of delay under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act in filing Form 10B of the Assessment Year (‘AY’) 2018-19. 5. Suffice

THE VEDIC CULTURE CENTRE,DELHI vs. ITO WARD(EXEMPTION)-2(3), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraita No.780/Del./2025, A.Y. 2022-23 The Vedic Culture Centre Income Tax Officer, 7, Institutional Area Ward (Exemption)-2(3), Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3 Vs. Civic Centre, Minto Road, Pan: Aaatt0811G New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. V. Raja Kumar, Advocate Respondent By Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 30/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/07/2025 Order Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am The Appeal For The Assessment Year (‘Ay’) 2022-23 Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 24.01.2025 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, New Delhi [‘Cit(A)’].

10B was directory in nature and not mandatary; hence, the same was condonable in view of the provisions of section 12A of the Act and that was why the CBDT condoned the delay

SIR CHHOTU RAM EDUCATIONAL TRUST,KANJHAWALA vs. ITO EXEMPTION, ROHTAK

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as not maintainable

Bench: the Tribunal.

condoning the delay u/s 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) in filing Form No. 10B of the Act for A.Y. 2020-21 vide his order dated 27/05/2025. 2. At the outset, Ld. CIT DR pointed out that this appeal is not maintainable as the order has been passed

P D MEMORIAL TRUST,DELHI vs. DLC-CA-2, RANGE- 48, WARD EXEMP 2(4), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

10B was directory in nature and not 4 P.D.Memorial Trust mandatary; hence, the same was condonable in view of the provisions of section 12A of the Act and that was why the CBDT condoned the delay

DCIT, HISAR vs. M/S SYNERGY WASTE MANAGEMENT PVT. LTD.,, HISAR

In the result, all the five captioned appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

condone the delay in filing the return as the assessee has completed all the formalities for filing the return & it was just omitted to be uploaded by the assessee’s counsel due to some technical error/confusion ITA Nos.5701-5704/Del/2016 12. The ld.CIT(A) has granted relief to the assessee by observing that the contentions of the appellant that it was prevented

DCIT, HISAR vs. M/S SYNERGY WASTE MANAGEMENT PVT. LTD.,, HISAR

In the result, all the five captioned appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

condone the delay in filing the return as the assessee has completed all the formalities for filing the return & it was just omitted to be uploaded by the assessee’s counsel due to some technical error/confusion ITA Nos.5701-5704/Del/2016 12. The ld.CIT(A) has granted relief to the assessee by observing that the contentions of the appellant that it was prevented