Bona fide disclosure requirements govern under-reporting penalties, and post-penalty immunity applications cannot secure available statutory protectio...
Certificate-of-origin verification procedure governs preferential customs benefits; denial without retroactive verification was set aside with consequ...
Disciplinary Committee jurisdiction and mandatory investigation requirements invalidated cancellation of an insolvency professional's registration and...
Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
A High Court held that a beneficial CBDT circular issued under section 119(2)(b) for condonation of delay in filing prescribed forms must be applied to genuine and bona fide cases, even where the assessment year is not expressly named. The court found that the relevant circular was the one dated 18.11.2024, which addressed condonation of delay, and that omission of AY 2023-24 was not decisive because the circular was meant to remedy genuine hardship. Rejecting a narrow year-specific reading as anomalous and unjust, the court set aside the refusal order and remitted the matter for fresh consideration in accordance with law.
A High Court held that a beneficial CBDT circular issued under section 119(2)(b) for condonation of delay in filing prescribed forms must be applied to genuine and bona fide cases, even where the assessment year is not expressly named. The court found that the relevant circular was the one dated 18.11.2024, which addressed condonation of delay, and that omission of AY 2023-24 was not decisive because the circular was meant to remedy genuine hardship. Rejecting a narrow year-specific reading as anomalous and unjust, the court set aside the refusal order and remitted the matter for fresh consideration in accordance with law.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.