DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. VISHWA JAGRITI MISSION

condonation of the delay in submitting the application was also filed. The returns of income would also appear to have been filed claiming exemption under section 11 of the Act in respect of the entire income of the assessee – society on the ground that it had applied for registration under section 12A

SHREE KHATHU SHYAM JANGID BRAHMAN DHARAMSHALA,GURGAON vs. ITO(E) WARD, FARIDABAD

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

Bench: Shri C.M. Gargassessment Year: 2016-17 Shree Khathu Shyam Jangid Brahman Vs. Ito (E), Dharamshala, Ward, C/O Rra Taxindia, Faridabad. D-28, South Exension, Part I, New Delhi – 110 049. Pan: Aajts0636B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Somil Agarwal, Advocate & Shri Deepesh Garg, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.07.2022 Order

condonation of delay in seeking registration was not available." This clearly goes to prove that the first proviso to section 12A

SHRI BANKE BIHARI GAUSHALA SOCIETY,BALLABGARH vs. CIT EXEMPTIONS, CHANDIGARH

In the result, both appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

section 12A(1)(ac) of the Act w.e.f. 01.10.2024 which reads as under: “[Provided that where the application is filed beyond the time allowed in sub-clauses (i) to (vi), the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner may, if he considers that there is a reasonable cause for delay in filing the application, condone

SHRI BANKE BIHARI GAUSHALA SOCIETY,BALLABGARH vs. CIT EXEMPTIONS, CHANDIGARH

In the result, both appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

section 12A(1)(ac) of the Act w.e.f. 01.10.2024 which reads as under: “[Provided that where the application is filed beyond the time allowed in sub-clauses (i) to (vi), the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner may, if he considers that there is a reasonable cause for delay in filing the application, condone

SAT SHREE LALJI MISSIONJ CHARITABLE TRUST,FARIDABAD vs. CIT EXEMPTIONS CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, both appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

section 12A(1)(ac) of the Act w.e.f. 01.10.2024 which reads as under: “[Provided that where the application is filed beyond the time allowed in sub-clauses (i) to (vi), the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner may, if he considers that there is a reasonable cause for delay in filing the application, condone

SAT SHREE LALJI MISSION CHARITABLE TRUST,FARIDABAD vs. CIT EXEMPTIONS CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, both appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

section 12A(1)(ac) of the Act w.e.f. 01.10.2024 which reads as under: “[Provided that where the application is filed beyond the time allowed in sub-clauses (i) to (vi), the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner may, if he considers that there is a reasonable cause for delay in filing the application, condone

ACIT, CIRCLE- 32(1), NEW DELHI vs. WINDLASS STEEL CRAFTS LLP, NEW DELHI

In the result, both appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

section 12A(1)(ac) of the Act w.e.f. 01.10.2024 which reads as under: “[Provided that where the application is filed beyond the time allowed in sub-clauses (i) to (vi), the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner may, if he considers that there is a reasonable cause for delay in filing the application, condone

M/S. GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,NEW DELHI vs. CIT, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaghaziabad Development Authority Vs Commissioner Of Income C/O M/S Rra Tax India, Tax, D-28, South Extension, Part-1, Ghaziabad. New Delhi. Aaalg0072C

delay of 1875 days ought to be condoned. On merits, the Ld. AR drew our attention to proviso to Section 12A

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CR BUILDING vs. PC JEWELLER LIMITED, DELHI

In the result appeals preferred by the revenue are dismissed and the\ncross objections preferred by the assessee are allowed\nOrder pronounced in open court on 06

12A of the Commercial\nCourts Act, 2015 and provisos (b) and (c) of Section 138 of the\nNegotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which\nprescribe period(s) of limitation for instituting proceedings,\nbuter limits (within which the court or tribunal can condone\ndelay) and termination of proceedings.\nThis explanation was given in regard to delay

BAGWANT KISHORE MEMORIAL EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,DELHI vs. ITO,WARD EXEMPTION 1(3), DELHI

In the result, assessee's appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

condonation of the delay in filing Form 10B and to claim the benefits of Sections 11 and 12 of the Page 2 of 10 ITA No.- 3657/Del/2023 Bhagwant Kishore Memorial Educational Society. Act. Being aggrieved with the above order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), this appeal filed by assessee for adjudication. 4. Heard rival submissions and carefully scanned

DCIT, CIRCLE - 19(1), DELHI vs. PC JEWELLER LIMITED, DELHI

In the result appeals preferred by the revenue are dismissed and the\ncross objections preferred by the assessee are allowed\nOrder pronounced in open court on 06

12A of the Commercial\nCourts Act, 2015 and provisos (b) and (c) of Section 138 of the\nNegotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which\nprescribe period(s) of limitation for instituting proceedings,\nbuter limits (within which the court or tribunal can condone\ndelay) and termination of proceedings.\nThis explanation was given in regard to delay

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. VISHWA JAGRITI MISSION

sections 12A and BOG and that the DI'l' (ExcrnPtions) ought to have condoned the delay and accorded regrstration. tTA Nos 7 54l2OlQ

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. VISHWA JAGRITI MISSION

sections 12A and BOG and that the DI'l' (ExcrnPtions) ought to have condoned the delay and accorded regrstration. tTA Nos 7 54l2OlQ

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. VISHWA JAGRITI MISSION

sections 12A and BOG and that the DI'l' (ExcrnPtions) ought to have condoned the delay and accorded regrstration. tTA Nos 7 54l2OlQ

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND (ICID PF TRUST),NEW DELHI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), DELHI

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed as above

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

section 12A of the Act. 5. At the outset, the Ld. Authorized Representative (AR) prayed for condonation of delay of 68 days

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND (ICID PF TRUST),NEW DELHI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), DELHI

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed as above

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

section 12A of the Act. 5. At the outset, the Ld. Authorized Representative (AR) prayed for condonation of delay of 68 days

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)

delay in filing of appeal are reproduced herein below:- “1. The Appellant Trust had filed the Return of Income for the above year on 30.09.2020, declaring Total income at Rs. Nil. The assessment for the above year was 2 completed as per Intimation/Order under Section 143(1) of the Act dated 30.11.2021 and income was assessed

DELHI AGROHA VIKAS TRUST,DELHI vs. CIT(E) DELHI, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri O. P. Kant

12A” 2.1 The grounds of appeal in ITA No.9349/Del/2019 are as under:- “That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, the Ld. CIT(Exemptions) have erred in rejecting the application of the Appellant Trust for exemption u/s 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as it was rejected on the basis of rejection of application