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 12A(1)(b) of the Act. Further, the Ld. AR submitted that the Ld. CIT(E), Delhi vide his order u/s 119(2)(b) of the Act dated 18.12.2025 has condoned the aforesaid delay

SANGEETA TOPPO,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 54(2), NEW DELLHI

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla

condonation of delay in filing of income-tax return, accordingly the ITR filed u/s 119(2)(b) could not be considered a valid ITR and in such a situation, the AO could not issue notice u/s 143(2). 6. I have considered the rival submissions and also perused the relevant facts qua this issue involved. The assessee’s contention

CHURCH'S AUXILIARY FOR SOCIAL ACTION,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

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

Condonation of delay as per section 80G(5C)(v) of the IT Act. Consequently, the amount claimed as per Form 10AA was treated as deemed income of the society for A.Y 2004-05. 5. Subsequently, the assesses filed the application u/s 119(2)(b

M/S. DOON VALLEY SPECIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT, DEHRADUN

In the result all the above four appeals filed by the assessee are disposed off by this common order

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishidoon Valley Special Area Vs. Cit (Exemption), Development Authority, Tc 46V, Up State 12, Pritam Road, Construction & Dehradun Infrastructure Development Pan: Aaald0125F Corporation, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow (Appellant) (Respondent)

119(2)(b) passed by CBDT subsequently, condoning the delay filing the application for registration which was originally passed on 29.01.2010. He further stated that the assessee should have attended the office of the ld CIT(E) on the appointed date and requested him for amendment in the order passed u/s 12AA of the Act. The assessee has not appeared

M/S. DOON VALLEY SPECIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT, DEHRADUN

In the result all the above four appeals filed by the assessee are disposed off by this common order

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishidoon Valley Special Area Vs. Cit (Exemption), Development Authority, Tc 46V, Up State 12, Pritam Road, Construction & Dehradun Infrastructure Development Pan: Aaald0125F Corporation, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow (Appellant) (Respondent)

119(2)(b) passed by CBDT subsequently, condoning the delay filing the application for registration which was originally passed on 29.01.2010. He further stated that the assessee should have attended the office of the ld CIT(E) on the appointed date and requested him for amendment in the order passed u/s 12AA of the Act. The assessee has not appeared

M/S. DOON VALLEY SPECIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,DEHRADUN vs. CIT (EXEMPTIONS), LUCKNOW

In the result all the above four appeals filed by the assessee are disposed off by this common order

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishidoon Valley Special Area Vs. Cit (Exemption), Development Authority, Tc 46V, Up State 12, Pritam Road, Construction & Dehradun Infrastructure Development Pan: Aaald0125F Corporation, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow (Appellant) (Respondent)

119(2)(b) passed by CBDT subsequently, condoning the delay filing the application for registration which was originally passed on 29.01.2010. He further stated that the assessee should have attended the office of the ld CIT(E) on the appointed date and requested him for amendment in the order passed u/s 12AA of the Act. The assessee has not appeared

M/S DOON VALLEY SPECIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT, DEHRADUN

In the result all the above four appeals filed by the assessee are disposed off by this common order

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishidoon Valley Special Area Vs. Cit (Exemption), Development Authority, Tc 46V, Up State 12, Pritam Road, Construction & Dehradun Infrastructure Development Pan: Aaald0125F Corporation, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow (Appellant) (Respondent)

119(2)(b) passed by CBDT subsequently, condoning the delay filing the application for registration which was originally passed on 29.01.2010. He further stated that the assessee should have attended the office of the ld CIT(E) on the appointed date and requested him for amendment in the order passed u/s 12AA of the Act. The assessee has not appeared

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)

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

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

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 filing Form B and claiming benefit of section

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

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 filing Form B and claiming benefit of section

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

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 filing Form B and claiming benefit of section

SHRI CHETAN SETH,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

condone the delay of 2947 days and admit this appeal for hearing. 3. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in ITA No.1808/Del/2023 for AY 2004-05 are as under:- “1.1. That the CIT (A) erred on facts and in law in not holding that the assessment order passed by the assessing officer under section 147/144 of the Income

SHRI CHETAN SETH,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

condone the delay of 2947 days and admit this appeal for hearing. 3. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in ITA No.1808/Del/2023 for AY 2004-05 are as under:- “1.1. That the CIT (A) erred on facts and in law in not holding that the assessment order passed by the assessing officer under section 147/144 of the Income

CHETAN SETH,NEW DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-15(3), DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

condone the delay of 2947 days and admit this appeal for hearing. 3. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in ITA No.1808/Del/2023 for AY 2004-05 are as under:- “1.1. That the CIT (A) erred on facts and in law in not holding that the assessment order passed by the assessing officer under section 147/144 of the Income

PUNIT KUMAR AGGARWAL,DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-36(2), DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

condone the delay of 2947 days and admit this appeal for hearing. 3. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in ITA No.1808/Del/2023 for AY 2004-05 are as under:- “1.1. That the CIT (A) erred on facts and in law in not holding that the assessment order passed by the assessing officer under section 147/144 of the Income

ISWAR CHAND DUBEY,DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-68 (1), DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

condone the delay of 2947 days and admit this appeal for hearing. 3. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in ITA No.1808/Del/2023 for AY 2004-05 are as under:- “1.1. That the CIT (A) erred on facts and in law in not holding that the assessment order passed by the assessing officer under section 147/144 of the Income

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

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

delay as an oversight by their Chartered I.T.A.Nos.3791 & 3792/Del/2023 Accountant/Auditor, condonation application under section 119(2)(b) was rejected