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
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Don't have an account? Register Here
<h1>Tribunal affirms manual Form No.10 submission for accumulation under section 11(2)</h1> <h3>Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax (Exemptions), Circle – 1 Versus M/s. Karnataka Law Society</h3> Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax (Exemptions), Circle – 1 Versus M/s. Karnataka Law Society - TMI Issues:Revenue's appeal against the order of CIT(A) for Assessment Year 2014-15 regarding the manual submission of Form No.10 for accumulation under section 11(2) of the Act.Analysis:The Revenue contended that the CIT(A) erred in allowing accumulation claimed by the assessee under section 11(2) of the Act based on the manual submission of Form No.10, arguing that electronic filing was mandatory from Assessment Year 2014-15. However, the tribunal noted that the requirement to file Form No.10 electronically came into effect from Assessment Year 2016-17, as per the IT (First Amendment) Rules, 2016. Since the present appeal pertained to Assessment Year 2014-15, the tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that the electronic filing requirement was not applicable for that year. The tribunal also acknowledged that the assessee had submitted the necessary forms and returns within the due date, making them eligible for accumulation under section 11(2) of the Act. Consequently, the tribunal found no grounds for interference in the CIT(A)'s order and dismissed Revenue's appeal for Assessment Year 2014-15.In conclusion, the tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(A) regarding the manual submission of Form No.10 for accumulation under section 11(2) of the Act for Assessment Year 2014-15. The tribunal clarified that the electronic filing requirement was not mandatory for that year and that the assessee had fulfilled the necessary criteria for accumulation. As a result, Revenue's appeal was dismissed, and the CIT(A)'s order was upheld.