https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=19637 The court allowed three writ petitions filed by a chartered accountant challenging the rejection of his deduction claim under section 80U(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The petitioner, who suffered a stroke leading to partial disability, initially misunderstood the eligibility criteria. The Commissioner's rejection based on the petitioner's profession and delay in filing was deemed unjustified. The court emphasized the duty of tax officers to assist taxpayers and directed reconsideration of the applications under section 264, stressing the importance of considering genuine reasons for delays in claiming deductions. en-us Wed, 02 Feb 1994 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 07 Nov 2009 16:03:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=19637 The court allowed three writ petitions filed by a chartered accountant challenging the rejection of his deduction claim under section 80U(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The petitioner, who suffered a stroke leading to partial disability, initially misunderstood the eligibility criteria. The Commissioner's rejection based on the petitioner's profession and delay in filing was deemed unjustified. The court emphasized the duty of tax officers to assist taxpayers and directed reconsideration of the applications under section 264, stressing the importance of considering genuine reasons for delays in claiming deductions. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 02 Feb 1994 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=19637