JAN SEVA MANDAL ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER EXEMPTION WARD -1(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statisti...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2023-24 Jan Seva Mandal, Central Processing Centre Income Vinayalaya, Mahakali Caves Tax Deparment, Bengaluru, Vs. Road, Andheri (East), Income Tax Officer Exemption Mumbai-400093. Ward 1(4), Mumbai. 6Th Floor, Mtnl Te Building, Pedder Road, Mumbai-400026. Pan No. Aaatj 4868 K Appellant Respondent

10B and was advised to approach the jurisdictional Principal and was advised to approach the jurisdictional Principal and was advised to approach the jurisdictional Principal Commissioner or Chief Commissioner for condonation of delay Commissioner or Chief Commissioner for condonation of delay Commissioner or Chief Commissioner for condonation of delay under Section

SHA HURGOWAN ANANDJI DESAI CHARITIES ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC , BENGULURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2022-23 Sha Hurgowan Anandji Desai Dy. Director Of Income-Tax, Cpc Charities, Bengaluru, 18, Bhaskar Lane, Bhuleshwar, Vs. Income Tax Officer Exemption Mumbai-400002. Ward 2(3), 6Th Floor, Mtnl Te Building Pedder Road, Mumbai-400026. Pan No. Aaats 0405 R Appellant Respondent

Condonation of delay under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in filing of Form No. 10B

CAREGIVER SAATHI FOUNDATION,GOREGAON MUMBAI vs. DY.DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX CPC BENGLURU, DY.DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX CPC BENGLURU

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2022-23 Caregiver Saathi Foundation, Dy. Cit, Cpc 1703, Sienna Tower Wing-B, Lodha Bengluru-560100. Vs. Florenza, Western Express Highway N Ext, To Hub Mall, Goregaon, Mumbai-400063. Pan No. Aaicc 5644 B Appellant Respondent

10B & 10BB for AY 2018-19 or for any 19 or for any subsequent Assessment Years, where there is the delay of subsequent Assessment Years, where there is the delay of subsequent Assessment Years, where there is the delay of up to 365 days and up to 365 days and decide on merits after considering decide on merits after considering

AADIVASI WELFARE FOUNDATION,JHARKHAND vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD 1(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhary & Shri Gagan Goyalaadivasi Welfare Foundation, Plot No. 8185, Sri Krishna Road, Near Srinath University, Dindli Basti, Majhitola, Adityapur, Pan No. Aarca5995N ...... Appellant Vs. Ao (Exem.) Ward-1(1), Pratistha Bhavan, Church Gate, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 ..... Respondent

10B on 20.10.2022, i.e. with a delay of 13 days. The AO refused to condone this delay and thus denied the Assessee the benefit of Section

GETINGE MEDICAL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(2)(1), MUMBAI MAHARASHTRA

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

section 119(2)(b) therefore does not advance its case. 6.6. The reliance placed by the Ld. DR on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Little Angels Educational Society v. Union of India(supra) is misplaced. The said judgment was rendered in the context of condonation of delay in filing Form 10B

FRANSALIAN SOCIETY NALLASOPARA,VASAI THANE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER EXEMPTION WARD - 1(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

The appeal of the appellant is dismissed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am)

Section 11 of the Act. 6 Fransalian Society 8. Again CBDT vide Circular No.16 of 2022 dated 19/07/2022 has extended the period of delay to condone beyond 365 days upto three years in filing of Form 10B

ROTARY CLUB OF BOMBAY QUEENS NECKLACE CHARITABLE TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 2(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Bijayananda Prusethrotary Club Of Bombay Vs Ito (Exem.) Ward 2(2), Mumbai Queens Necklace Charitable Aayakar Bhawan, M.K. Road Trust Mumbai-400020 B 41/45, Paragon Centre, Pandurang Budhkar Marg, Worli, Mumbai-400013 Pan: Aaatr4200K Appellant Respondent

10B with a delay of 24 days. We find that if this delay is not condoned, there will be genuine hardship to the Petitioner, inasmuch as, the Petitioner would be denied the exemption otherwise claimed under the provisions of Section

DAMANI WELFARE AND CULTURAL ASSOCIATION,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI

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

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (Accountant Member)

condonation of delay in filing of form 10B stating as under:- “The assessee is the Section 8 Company having registered

LOKUMAL KISHINCHAND CHARITY TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER EXEMPTION WARD 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assesseeis allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Lokumal Kishinchand Charity Trust Ito Exemption Ward-1(4), 629-A, Gazdar House, 3Rd Floor, Vs Mumbai J Shanker Seth Marg, Dhobi Talao, Mumbai – 400002. [Pan No. Aaatl2570L] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

10B, the assessee filed application for condonation of delay before Commissioner (Exemption) under section 119(2)(b) on the basis

AWAAZ FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. ACIT TRUST CIRCLE/CPC, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1924/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2020-21) Acit, Trust Circle/Cpc, Awaaz Foundation, Mtnl Building, Peddar C/O- Sumaira Abdulali, 3, बिधम/ Road, Mumbai-400 026 Reshma Apartment, 13 Pali Vs. Hill Road, Near Petit School, Bandra (W) Mumbai-400 050 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aabta8994Q (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri N. R. Agarwal, Ld. Ar प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Manoj Sinha, Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 03.10.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 30.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Impugned Order Dated 26.07.2022, Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi In Relation To Intimation U/S 143(1) For Ay 2020-21. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

sections 11 and 12 of the Act. 3. Representations have been received by the Board/field authorities stating that Form No. 10B could not be filed along with the return of income for A. Y. 2016-17 and A. Y. 2017-18. It has been requested that the delay in filing of Form No. 10B may be condoned

J V FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

section 119(2) of the Act and decide on merits. In this case, the assessee has filed Form 108 on 24.01.2018. The delay by the assessee in filing of Form No. 10Bis 1223 days: The assessee has applied for condonation of delay after a further period of 2346 days on 27.06.2024. The assessee has delayed filing of Form 10B

JV FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

section 119(2) of the Act and decide on merits. In this case, the assessee has filed Form 108 on 24.01.2018. The delay by the assessee in filing of Form No. 10Bis 1223 days: The assessee has applied for condonation of delay after a further period of 2346 days on 27.06.2024. The assessee has delayed filing of Form 10B

ST. THOMAS CHURCH,MUMBAI vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD 2(4), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 296/Mum/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2022-23) St Thomas Church V/S. Income Tax Officer 1, Church Road, बिाम (Exemptions) Ward 2(4), Goregaon (East), Mumbai Mumbai 400063 6Th Floor, Cumballa Hill, Mtnl Te Building, Pedder Road, Mumbai 400026. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaatt4878R Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवादी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By: Ms. Vasanti Patel-Adv राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Cit Dr

10B on 05.11.2022. The e-Return of Income had been filed on 07.11.2022 i.e. within the extended due date as per the CBDT circular No. 20/2022 dated 26.10.2022. Accordingly, the benefits of section 11 of the Act cannot be denied only on account of alleged delay in filing the said Audit Report. Alternatively, such small delay may kindly be condoned

ICL EDUCATION SOCIETY,MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-EXEM. CIRCLE 1, MUMBAI, EXEMPTION. CIRCLE

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

Bench: Shir Om Prakash Kant & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanicl Education Society Dcit Exem. Circle 1, 104, Sir Vithaldas Chambers, 16, Mtnl Building, Pedder Road, Bombay Samachar Marg, Fort, Vs. Mumbai-400 026 Mumbai-400 023 Pan: Aaati 1111 N (Appellant) (Respondent)

condonation of delay in filing Form 10B and to claim the benefit of section 11 and 12 of the Act. 2. The brief

SHEETAL LODHA FOUNDATION,MAHALAXMI, MUMBAI vs. DLC-CA-(102)(2), CPC, BANGALORE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am)

10B or any audit report u/s. 119(2)(b) to the CITS/CCITs/PCCITs. It is further submitted that the power to condone the delay has not been given to Appellate Authorities, or enshrined in section

SMT. HIRABEN DHANJI VALJI VELANI FOUNDATION ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION) , MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No. 1 to 3 raised by\nthe Appellant are allowed while Ground No

10B was condoned, the exemption under Section 11 of the Act could no longer be denied.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": [ "143(1)", "246A", "119(2)(b)", "11" ], "issues": "Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal as time-barred without considering the condonation of delay

MIG CRICKET CLUB,MUMBAI vs. DCIT(E)-2, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavassessment Year : 2014-15 Mig Cricket Club, Dcit(E)-2, Mig Colony, Mtnl Building, Mig Cricket Club, Vs. Cumballa Hill, Ramkrishna Paramhans Marg, Mumbai-400026. Bandra East, Mumbai-400051. Pan : Aaatm4779J (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Anil Sathe For Revenue : Shri Annavaran Kosuri, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 27-11-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-11-2025

section 11 solely on account of such delay. 15. We are, therefore, of the considered view that both the delay in filing Form 10B and the delay of 63 days in filing appeal before the CIT(A) deserve to be condoned

THE MARKET RESERCH SOCIETY OF INDIA ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER EXEMPTION WARD 2(4), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

section 11 of the Act is denied to the assessee for the reason that the assessee has not filed the Form 10B while filing the return of income. We notice that the assessee has subsequently filed the Form 10B and petition for condoning the delay

ST. FRANCIS XAVIER CHURCH,PANVEL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), THANE

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

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavassessment Year : 2024-25 St. Francis Xavier Church Trust, Income Tax Officer, Plot 379/B, Behind Orion Mall Exemption Ward, Thane & S.T. Depot, Vs. Quershi Mansion, Panvel-410206. Gokhale Road, Pan : Aaets4913N Naupada, Thane-400602. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : None For Revenue : Smt. B. Brahma Vidya Date Of Hearing : 25-11-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 25-11-2025 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Addl/Jcit(A)-Agra, Dated 29-07-2025, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2024-25, Wherein The Assessee Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1.1. On The Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)] Erred In Confirming The Denial Of Exemption/Deductions Under Section 11 Of The Act Resorted To By The Centralized Processing Centre [Cpc), Income Tax Department, Bengaluru (The Learned Assessing Officer) While Processing The Return Of Income Under Section 143(1) Of The Act On The Grounds That The Audit Report In Form 10-Bb Was Filed Belatedly, Though With The Return Of Income Which Was Filed Within The Extended Time Limit Under Section 139(1) Of The Act.

section 11 solely on account of such delay. 15. We are, therefore, of the considered view that both the delay in filing Form 10B and the delay of 63 days in filing appeal before the CIT(A) 8 deserve to be condoned