https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=10677 The court interpreted the term "made" in the proviso to section 80MM of the Income-tax Act, determining that it should be given its normal meaning, not necessarily requiring receipt by the Board before the cut-off date. The petitioner, having dispatched the application on time, was held entitled to the benefit for the assessment year 1978-79. The court emphasized the Board's power to condone delays and faulted it for not considering the petitioner's request for condonation. Consequently, the court set aside the Board's orders, granting the petitioner the benefit from the financial year 1978-79, and allowed the writ petition with each party bearing its own costs. en-us Thu, 03 Mar 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 21 Jul 2009 11:59:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=10677 The court interpreted the term "made" in the proviso to section 80MM of the Income-tax Act, determining that it should be given its normal meaning, not necessarily requiring receipt by the Board before the cut-off date. The petitioner, having dispatched the application on time, was held entitled to the benefit for the assessment year 1978-79. The court emphasized the Board's power to condone delays and faulted it for not considering the petitioner's request for condonation. Consequently, the court set aside the Board's orders, granting the petitioner the benefit from the financial year 1978-79, and allowed the writ petition with each party bearing its own costs. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 03 Mar 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=10677