https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=409931 ITAT CHENNAI - AT held that interest-free advances to two consultants did not amount to benefit to persons under s.13(3)/(1)(c), so the AO erred in denying exemption under s.11 for AYs 2012-13 and 2013-14 and directed allowance. For AYs 2016-17 and 2017-18 the tribunal found no violation of s.13(1)(c) and that exemption under s.11 is justified, but directed the AO to decide accumulation under s.11(2) after noting the assessee's pending condonation petition before the Pr.CIT and the applicable Supreme Court ratio. en-us Fri, 16 Jul 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 24 Oct 2025 16:37:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=409931 ITAT CHENNAI - AT held that interest-free advances to two consultants did not amount to benefit to persons under s.13(3)/(1)(c), so the AO erred in denying exemption under s.11 for AYs 2012-13 and 2013-14 and directed allowance. For AYs 2016-17 and 2017-18 the tribunal found no violation of s.13(1)(c) and that exemption under s.11 is justified, but directed the AO to decide accumulation under s.11(2) after noting the assessee's pending condonation petition before the Pr.CIT and the applicable Supreme Court ratio. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 16 Jul 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=409931