TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>High Court grants cricket body liberty to seek condonation of delay in tax filing; emphasizes procedural compliance</h1> <h3>Tripura Cricket Association Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors.</h3> Tripura Cricket Association Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. - TMI Issues:1. Delay in filing Form No.10 for assessment year 2017-2018.Analysis:The petitioner, a governing body for cricket in Tripura affiliated with the BCCI, sought relief due to a delay in filing Form No.10 under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner requested permission to apply to the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) for condonation of the delay. The petitioner, represented by Mr. Majumdar, emphasized a relevant decision in the case of Little Angels Education Society Vs. Union of India. The High Court, after hearing both parties, granted the petitioner liberty to submit an application to the CBDT under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act. The court directed the CBDT to consider and decide on the application within four weeks of its receipt, in accordance with the law, while informing the petitioner of the outcome. Notably, the court clarified that it did not delve into the merits of the case, leaving the decision to the concerned authority to decide independently and in compliance with the law. Consequently, the writ petition (W.P.A. 8480 of 2020) was disposed of.This judgment primarily addresses the issue of delay in filing Form No.10 for the assessment year 2017-2018 by the petitioner, a cricket governing body in Tripura. The court's decision to grant liberty to the petitioner to approach the CBDT for condonation of the delay reflects a balanced approach, ensuring the petitioner's right to seek relief while upholding the procedural requirements under the Income Tax Act. By emphasizing that the CBDT should decide on the application within a specified timeframe and in accordance with the law, the court maintains transparency and accountability in the process. The reference to a relevant legal precedent highlights the importance of legal principles and precedents in guiding judicial decisions, further strengthening the petitioner's case. Overall, the judgment showcases a judicious application of legal provisions to address the specific issue at hand, providing a clear pathway for the petitioner to seek redressal for the delay in filing the required form.
TaxTMI 