SEARSALE SRI RAM KRISHNA SHARADA CHETANA SANGHA,BURDWAN vs. WARD-2(1),EXEMPTION. , DURGAPUR

The appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Rajesh Kumar

condonation of delay. The assessee has moved an application under section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act as provided

SEARSALE SRI RAMKRISHNA SHARADA CHETANA SANGHA,BURDWAN vs. WARD-2(1), EXEMPTION. , DURGAPUR

The appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Rajesh Kumar

condonation of delay. The assessee has moved an application under section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act as provided

M/S. ELCON ESTATE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 13(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

condonation of delay in compliance with any provision of the\nAct. Section 119(2) reads as follows:\nSection 119(2)\nI.T.A. No.2277/Kol/2024\n Assessment Year: 2022-23\nM/s Elcon Estate Pvt. Ltd\n(a) ...\n(b

AL AMEEN ISLAMICK TRUST,HOWRAH vs. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CENTRE, , BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra]

condonation of delay under section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act and decide on merits and satisfy himself

SRIRAMPUR NITYANANDA SAMABAY KRISHI UNNAYAN SAMITY LTD.,TAMLUK, PURBA MEDNIPUR vs. I.T.O., WARD - 27(3),, HALDIA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

condonation of delay under section 119 (2) (b) of the said Act. That due to non appearance the arguments were

NABARUN S K U S LTD.,NADIA vs. I.T.O.WARD-41(1), KRISHNANAGAR

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Condonation of delay under clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 119 of\nthe Income-tax Act, 1961 for returns

RAHEE STEEL TECH PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Assessing Officer On 10.1.2024, Therefore, The Action Of Ao (Cpc) Is Not Correct & Cannot Be Sustained & So Also The Order Of The Ld Cit(A). The Above View Finds Support From The Decision Of Hon’Ble Gujarat High Court In The Case Of Royal Led Equipment (P) Ltd Vs Ccit (2025) 174 Taxmann.Com 61 (Gujarat), Wherein, The Hon’Ble High Court Has Held As Under:

condoned the delay in filing Form 10-IC by the petitioner instead of rejecting the review application filed by the petitioner on technical P a g e 2 | 8 Assessment Year : 2023-24 "13. On perusal of the above circular, it appears that on receipt of the representation, the CBDT has exercised the powers under Section 119(2)(b

PANDAVESWAR COLLIERY EMPLOYEES COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,PANDAVESWAR vs. ITO, WARD 2(4), , DURGAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as\nwithdrawn

condonation of delay in filing the return and for claiming deductions. The assessee's representative requested the appeal to be treated as not pressed, with liberty to file a fresh appeal.", "result": "Dismissed as withdrawn", "sections": ["148", "142(1)", "80P(2)(a)(i)", "80P(2)(d)", "139(1)", "119(2)(b

BANSAL FOUNDATION,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 1(2), EXEMPTION, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 2235/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2022-2023 Bansal Foundation,………………………...……Appellant White House, 3Rd Floor, 119, Park Street, Kolkata-700016 [Pan:Aadtb0630J] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………....Respondent Ward-1(2), (Exemption), 10B, Middleton Road, Kolkata-700071

delay in filing Form No. 9A and Form No. 10 for the assessment year 2016-17 may be condoned under section 119(2)(b

M/S. KALYAN EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,BUDBUD, BURDWAN (EAST) vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 2, DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No. 106/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2020-2021 M/S. Kalyan Educational Society,..............Appellant Budbud Bye Pass (North), Distg. Bardhaman-713403 [Pan: Aabtk2860K] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Respondent Circle-2, Durgapur, Aayakar Bhawan, Durgapur, West Bengal Appearances By: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate, Smt. Puja Somani, C.A., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Subhrajyoti Bhattacharjee, Cit (Dr), Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue

section 139 of the Act is condoned. (ii) In all other cases of belated applications in filing Form No.10B for years prior to AY 2018-19, The commissioner of Income- Tax arc authorized to admit and dispose off by 31.03.2020 such applications for condonation of delay u/s 119(2)(b

SALT LAKE SANSKRITIK SANSAD ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 40/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2023-2024 Salt Lake Sanskritik Sansad,…………...……Appellant Sector-1, Trust Bhawan, Ca-49, Salt Lake, Kolkata-700064, West Bengal [Pan:Aaets4162K] -Vs.- Deputy Director Of Income Tax,................Respondent Circle Cpc, Bengaluru, Prestige Alpha, Post Bag No. 2, Electronic City Post, Hosur Road, Bangalore-560 100, Karnataka Appearances By: Shri N. Kausic, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Kallol Mistry, Jcit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: April 23, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: May 30, 2025 O R D E R

delay in filing of the audit report”. He, therefore, pleaded to set aside the orders passed by the lower authorities. 6. On the other hand, ld. Departmental Representative submits that the assessee ought to have filed the condonation petition before the revenue authorities under section 119(2)(b

GIRIK ESTATE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD 6(2), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoysarma]

condone the delay and proceed to decide the appeal on merit. 9. Vide issue raised in ground no. 2, the assessee has assailed the order of Ld. CIT(A) upholding the assessment framed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act of the Act which is invalid, ab-initio void, ultra vires and ex-facie nullity in the eyes

M/S SIKAR ZILLA WELFARE TRUST ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-1(3), EXEMPT, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm M/S Sikar Zilla Welfare Income Tax Officer, Trust Ward 1(3), Exempt 1A, Sikar Bhawan, Vs. Ashutosh Dey Lane, Kolkata-400071 Kolkata-700006 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadts3808D Assessee By : Shri Sunil Surana, Ar Revenue By : Shri Gautam Patra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.08.2024

Section 119(2)(b) to learned Pr. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax for condonation of delay. However, since the delay

ITO (EXEMPTION), WARD - 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. INDIAN SUGAR MILLS ASSOCIATION, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

section 119(2)(b) has delegated the powers to PCIT/CIT to condone the delay in filing Form 10B beyond 365 days

SOCIETY FOR COMMUNITY INTERVENTION & RESEARCH,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 1(1), EXEMPTION, KOLKATA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.2087/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Society For Community Intervention & Research…....Appellant 2/2, Tiljala Road, Near No.2 Rail Gate, Park Circus Station, Kol-700046. [Pan: Aaatc4285B] Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1), Exemption, Kolkata…..…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Akkal Dudhewala, Ar & Vidhi Ladia, Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Susanta Saha & Shri Rajat Datta, Sr. Drs, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 05, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 16, 2024 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 14.08.2024 Of The Cit(Appeals), Addl/Jcit(A)-1, Hyderabad [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That An Intimation Order U/S 143(1) Of The Act Dated 27.03.2019 Was Passed By The Cpc, Bengaluru Denying Exemption U/S 11 To The Assessee On The Ground Of Non-Filing Form 10B In Time Or Before The Filing Of The Return Of Income.

condonation petition u/s 119(2)(b); of the Act before the competent authority which was also rejected. The contention of the assessee is that the denial of exemption u/s 11 of the Act on the procedural ground is contrary and relied on the CBDT Circular No.10 of 2009 dated 22.05.2019 that clarifies procedural lapse of filing Form 10B which should

DIGVIJAY FINLEASE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey&Shri Sanjay Awasthi]

119(2)(b) in filing the revised return of income for year under consideration 3 I.T.A. No. 1139/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Digvijay Finlease Limited has been codoned. The Ld. Counsel further submits that the Ld. CIT(A) has rejected the claim of the assessee that Form no 10IC was filed but return of income for the relevant assessment year

DAROGA FAMILY FOUNDATION,KOLKATA vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Pradip Kumar Choubey

119(2)(b) of the Act and find that— it is observed that the applicant has no reasonable cause regarding the delay in filing Form-10B, assessee applicant has failed to explain the reasonable cause which prevented him from filing Form-10B within the stipulated time. We have gone through the judgement passed by the Coordinate Bench of ITAT, Ahmedabad

SMITA BISWAS,JALPAIGURI vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-1(1), JALPAIGURI, JALPAIGURI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar]

condone the delay. 5. The assessee has raised legal issue before us that the assessment was framed by ACIT, Circle-1(1), Jalpaiguri instead of jurisdiction with ITO, Ward-1(4), Jalpaiguri who issued the notice u/s 143(2) of the Act and has the pecuniary jurisdiction in terms of Instruction No. 1/2011{F.No.187/12/2010-IT(A-I)}. 6. Facts