<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2019 (6) TMI 1045 - ITAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=381968</link>
    <description>The tribunal dismissed the appeal challenging the reopening of assessment under section 147. However, it ruled in favor of the assessee regarding the denial of deduction under section 80IB and filing the return beyond the prescribed period under section 139. The tribunal held that the delay in filing the return was beyond the assessee&#039;s control and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer to determine eligibility for claiming deduction under section 80IC. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 06 Jun 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 22 Jun 2019 08:09:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=576189" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (6) TMI 1045 - ITAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=381968</link>
      <description>The tribunal dismissed the appeal challenging the reopening of assessment under section 147. However, it ruled in favor of the assessee regarding the denial of deduction under section 80IB and filing the return beyond the prescribed period under section 139. The tribunal held that the delay in filing the return was beyond the assessee&#039;s control and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer to determine eligibility for claiming deduction under section 80IC. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 06 Jun 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=381968</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>