<?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>1994 (1) TMI 65 - MADRAS High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=20141</link>
    <description>HC held that the requirement in s.80J(6A) to file an audit report with the return is not mandatory; where preparation of the audit report was beyond the assessee&#039;s control the assessee could delay filing the return until the audit report was available. Denial of deduction because the return was filed earlier and the audit report produced later was improper. The Tribunal&#039;s view was upheld, the questions were answered against the Revenue and costs were awarded.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 19 Jan 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 17 Oct 2025 10:50:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=59140" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1994 (1) TMI 65 - MADRAS High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=20141</link>
      <description>HC held that the requirement in s.80J(6A) to file an audit report with the return is not mandatory; where preparation of the audit report was beyond the assessee&#039;s control the assessee could delay filing the return until the audit report was available. Denial of deduction because the return was filed earlier and the audit report produced later was improper. The Tribunal&#039;s view was upheld, the questions were answered against the Revenue and costs were awarded.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 19 Jan 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=20141</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>