https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=18844 Belated filing of a return, coupled with a prescribed application seeking extension of time, was treated on the facts as implying condonation of delay and extension of the filing period for carry forward of loss. The Tribunal's approach rested on the factual materials showing that the delay request had not been acted upon by the Income-tax Officer. On that basis, it was concluded that no referable question of law arose under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the request to require a statement of case was rejected. en-us Wed, 15 Feb 1995 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 02 Nov 2009 13:04:09 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=18844 Belated filing of a return, coupled with a prescribed application seeking extension of time, was treated on the facts as implying condonation of delay and extension of the filing period for carry forward of loss. The Tribunal's approach rested on the factual materials showing that the delay request had not been acted upon by the Income-tax Officer. On that basis, it was concluded that no referable question of law arose under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the request to require a statement of case was rejected. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 15 Feb 1995 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=18844