<?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>2015 (4) TMI 1279 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT  </title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283647</link>
    <description>Section 80AC was construed strictly to require a return of income to be filed on or before the due date under Section 139(1) for deduction under Section 80IB. The Court declined to read Section 139(4) into Section 80AC, holding that a later return cannot cure non-compliance where Parliament omitted any reference to that provision. On the condonation issue, the refusal under Section 119 was upheld because the explanation for delay was not shown to be beyond the assessee&#039;s control, and the absence of the auditor&#039;s report was treated as at most a curable irregularity. The claimed deduction therefore remained unavailable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 01 Apr 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 04 Oct 2019 12:06:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=589764" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (4) TMI 1279 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT  </title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283647</link>
      <description>Section 80AC was construed strictly to require a return of income to be filed on or before the due date under Section 139(1) for deduction under Section 80IB. The Court declined to read Section 139(4) into Section 80AC, holding that a later return cannot cure non-compliance where Parliament omitted any reference to that provision. On the condonation issue, the refusal under Section 119 was upheld because the explanation for delay was not shown to be beyond the assessee&#039;s control, and the absence of the auditor&#039;s report was treated as at most a curable irregularity. The claimed deduction therefore remained unavailable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 01 Apr 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283647</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>