<?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>1991 (4) TMI 56 - CALCUTTA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=21977</link>
    <description>HC held that the assessee, an admittedly registered charitable trust regularly granted exemption in earlier years, was wrongly denied exemption u/s 11 solely for not filing the audit report in Form 10B along with the original return. Interpreting ss. 12A, 139(5), 139(9) and 292B purposively, the court ruled that the audit report, filed before completion of assessment, validly cured a defect in the return and satisfied the statutory condition. The provisions were treated as enabling, intended to secure correct assessment rather than to defeat exemption on hypertechnical grounds. The question was answered in the affirmative, upholding the Tribunal and restoring exemption u/s 11 in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 22 Apr 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 08 Dec 2025 15:23:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=60976" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1991 (4) TMI 56 - CALCUTTA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=21977</link>
      <description>HC held that the assessee, an admittedly registered charitable trust regularly granted exemption in earlier years, was wrongly denied exemption u/s 11 solely for not filing the audit report in Form 10B along with the original return. Interpreting ss. 12A, 139(5), 139(9) and 292B purposively, the court ruled that the audit report, filed before completion of assessment, validly cured a defect in the return and satisfied the statutory condition. The provisions were treated as enabling, intended to secure correct assessment rather than to defeat exemption on hypertechnical grounds. The question was answered in the affirmative, upholding the Tribunal and restoring exemption u/s 11 in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 22 Apr 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=21977</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>