DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX 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/ 12AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961? (2) Whether the order passed by the Tribunal is perverse?” 2. In the other appeals, the following common substantial question of law was framed on the same day: - “Whether the Income

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/ 12AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961? (2) Whether the order passed by the Tribunal is perverse?” 2. In the other appeals, the following common substantial question of law was framed on the same day: - “Whether the Income

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/ 12AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961? (2) Whether the order passed by the Tribunal is perverse?” 2. In the other appeals, the following common substantial question of law was framed on the same day: - “Whether the Income

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

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

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

b) of the Act as it stood for Assessment Year 2018-19 wherein the only condition is that audit report is to be filed along with the Return of Income. In the instant case, both the return of income as well as Form 10B audit report were filed together on 25-1-2019 which is well within the due date

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

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

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

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

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

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

SHAKUNTLAM BAL VIKAS SOCIETY,DELHI vs. ITO WARD EXEMP 2(1), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2022-23

delay of 31 days. Due to this, the non-compliance 4 in terms of section 12A(1)(b) has happened at the end of the petitioner assessee. It is submitted that as a matter of record that audit of the society was completed on dated 30/09/2022 i.e well within time as per the provisions of the Income Tax Act. This

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)

condonation of delay in filing Form 10B before concerned Pr. Commissioner/Commissioner/Director of Income-tax as provided under section 119(2)(b). Whether there was no infirmity in order passed by Commissioner (Appeals)-hold, Yes (Paras 6.2 and 6.3) [In favour of revenue." 3. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CC v, Dilip Kumar & Company [2018] 95 taxmann.com

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

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 of 238 days

DILEEP K GUPTA,DELHI vs. DCIT, CC-31, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

12A) of section 2 was inserted to give legal recognition to the books of account maintained on computer and sub-section (22A) to section 2 was inserted to provide definition of 'document' which included “electronic record" as defined under Information Technology Act 2000. Under Information Technology Act 2000 an electronic record has been defined to include data, record or data

DILEEP K GUPTA,DELHI vs. DCIT CC-31, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

12A) of section 2 was inserted to give legal recognition to the books of account maintained on computer and sub-section (22A) to section 2 was inserted to provide definition of 'document' which included “electronic record" as defined under Information Technology Act 2000. Under Information Technology Act 2000 an electronic record has been defined to include data, record or data

DILEEP K GUPTA,DELHI vs. DCIT, CC-31 , DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

12A) of section 2 was inserted to give legal recognition to the books of account maintained on computer and sub-section (22A) to section 2 was inserted to provide definition of 'document' which included “electronic record" as defined under Information Technology Act 2000. Under Information Technology Act 2000 an electronic record has been defined to include data, record or data