Judgements of Note

  1. Delay in Filing of Form 10B – Exemption u/s.11 not to be denied if Form
    filed before processing ROI u/s.143(1)

    The Visakhapatnam Bench of the ITAT in Aravinda Educational Society v
    Addl / JCIT(A) [2025] 172 taxmann.com 390 (Viaskha – Trib)
    has
    condoned the delay in filing Form 10B i.e. audit report filed by a Charitable or
    Religious Trust or Institution which had been filed after the due date but
    before the processing of the ROI u/s.143(1). A similar view was taken by the
    Pune Bench of the ITAT in Jeevprabha Charitable Trust v ITO [2025] 172
    taxmann.com 282 (Pune – Trib)
    particularly since Form 10B was filed with
    the same UDIN which was generated at the time of filing the return of income.
  2. CBDT to pass order u/s.119(2)(b) where Addl CIT has no power and
    dismissed the application

    Where an assessee filed a petition u/s.119(2)(b) before the Additional CIT
    who dismissed the same on the basis that he has no powers to condone the
    delay and it is vested with the CBDT, the impugned order was set aside and
    remanded to the CBDT or its duly allocated member to pass an order on the
    application of the assessee. This decision has been rendered by the Bombay
    HC in ND’s Art World (P) Ltd v Addl CIT (OSD)(OT&WT) [2025] 172
    taxmann.com 383 (Bom).
  3. Attachment of properties despite moratorium u/s.14 of IBC – Held Valid
    The SAFEMA Tribunal in State Bank of India & Ors v Deputy Director,
    Directorate of Enforcement 2025 (4) TMI 692 – AT under SAFEMA
    , New
    Delhi has held that attachment of properties despite a moratorium u/s.14 of
    the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) was held valid as section 14
    of IBC does not bar an attachment in such cases. This issue has been
    considered and settled by the Delhi HC in Rajiv Chakraborty Resolution
    Professional of EIEL v Directorate of Enforcement 2022 (11) TMI 600 –
    Del HC.
    Section 32A of the IBC provides immunity only when the resolution
    plan is approved and specific conditions are met but not otherwise. It was
    further held by the SAFEMA Tribunal that properties acquired before the
    crime can also be attached under PMLA if they are equivalent to the proceeds
    of crime and SARFAESI Act does not take precedence over PMLA.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *