DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) vs. VISHWA JAGRITI MISSION

1) Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has erred in condoning delay in filing of the application for registration under Section 12A

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

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

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

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

UTTARANCHAL RURAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY,DEHRADUN vs. ITO, EXEMPTION CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri M. Balaganeshuttaranchal Rural Development Vs. Ito, Agency, Exemption Circle, Panchayati Raj Bhawan, Ghaziabad Sahastrradhara Road, Dehradun, Uttarakhand (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaaju0214A Assessee By : Shri S. B. Gupta, Ca Revenue By: Shri N. G. Joseph Gangte, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 22/10/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 18/12/2024

delay of 7 days deserves to be condoned. In any case the return was filed before 31.03.2021 which is the last date for filing a belated return of income. It would be pertinent to refer to the above CBDT Circular which is as under :- Uttaranchal Rural Development Agency "F. No. 173/193/2019-ITA-1 Government of India- Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-2 vs. IMPERIAL HOUSING VENTURES P. LTD.

Accordingly, LPA 362/2020 is allowed,

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SHARMA

12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and provisos (b) and (c) of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) of limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the court or tribunal can condone delay) and termination of proceedings. We have passed this order in exercise of our powers under

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) vs. SERVICES COMPANIES

In the result the appeals are disposed of as above with no order as to

12A of the Act by order dated 29.06.1998. In respect of the assessment year 1998-99, it filed a return of income declaring “nil” income on 22.10.1998. The return was first accepted under Section 143(1)(a) on 26.03.1999 but was subsequently selected for scrutiny. Accordingly notices were issued under Section 143(2) of the Act. In the course

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) vs. NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SOFTWARE AND SERVICE COMPANIES (NASSCOM)

In the result the appeals are disposed of as above with no order as to

12A of the Act by order dated 29.06.1998. In respect of the assessment year 1998-99, it filed a return of income declaring “nil” income on 22.10.1998. The return was first accepted under Section 143(1)(a) on 26.03.1999 but was subsequently selected for scrutiny. Accordingly notices were issued under Section 143(2) of the Act. In the course

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-1, DELHI vs. SMT. SANGEETA SAWHNEY

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA

delays. Yet another facet of effective remedy is in its cohesiveness. 23. In conclusion, we hold that an application under Section 29A(5) for extension of the mandate of the arbitrator is maintainable even after the expiry of the time under Sections 29A(1) and (3) and even after rendering of an award during that time. Such an award

SWAVALAMBAN AVAM SWABHIMAAN FOUNDATION,DELHI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), DELHI

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

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra

delay of 11 days in filing these appeals is condoned and the appeals are admitted for hearing on merits. 3. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to the order of rejection dated 10.03.2025 of the Ld. CIT(E), stated that registration was denied to the assessee u/s.12A on the ground that certain details were not furnished by the assessee

SWAVALAMBAN AVAM SWABHIMAAN FOUNDATION ,DELHI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION ), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra

delay of 11 days in filing these appeals is condoned and the appeals are admitted for hearing on merits. 3. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to the order of rejection dated 10.03.2025 of the Ld. CIT(E), stated that registration was denied to the assessee u/s.12A on the ground that certain details were not furnished by the assessee

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

1 year and 9 months (635 days). The period of delay is\ntabulated as under:\nSl. No.\nParticulars\nDate\nPeriod of Delay\n1\nDate of receipt of order issued\nu/s 143(3) of the Act\n26.12.2018\n2\nDue date for filing of appeal\n25.01.2019\n3\nDate of filing of appeal\n06.10.2020\n4\nTotal Days Delay\n635\n5\nPeriod of Delay

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

1) of the Act.\n2\nDue date for filing of appeal\n23-08-2016\n3\nDate of filing of appeal\n07-11-2020\n4\nTotal Days Delay\n1537\n5\nPeriod of Delay\n24-08-2016\nto 1299\n14.03.2020\n6\nBalance Period due to Covid 15-03-2020 to 238\n19 Pandemic\n07.11.2020\n3.0 In respect of condonation of delay, reliance

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 (1

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

12A of the Act and that was why the CBDT condoned the delay in filing the audit report in Form No. 10B for AYs 2016-17 and 2017-18 even without filing the condonation petition. However, in cases for the AY 2018-19 onward, the Circular was silent. The Ld. Counsel submitted that the filing of audit report in Form

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

12A(1)(b) of the Act which required the assessee to file Audit Report in Form of 10B of the Act which has nothing to do with claiming 100% exemption of total income in respect of newly established 100% Export Oriented Undertakings under Section 10B of the Act. Section 10B(8) of the Act requires the assessee to file