https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=415873 A recognised provident fund's interest income remained exempt under section 10(25)(ii) where its identity and exempt status were otherwise clear from the record. An abbreviated name in the return was treated as a technical defect, not a substantive basis to deny exemption. The article also states that section 143(1) processing cannot be used to make a disallowance of the exemption on that ground, and that in the absence of scrutiny under section 143(2), the denial was not justified. Refusal to rectify the intimation under section 154 was therefore unsustainable, and relief under section 10(25)(ii) followed. en-us Thu, 18 Nov 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 16 Dec 2021 09:06:27 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=415873 A recognised provident fund's interest income remained exempt under section 10(25)(ii) where its identity and exempt status were otherwise clear from the record. An abbreviated name in the return was treated as a technical defect, not a substantive basis to deny exemption. The article also states that section 143(1) processing cannot be used to make a disallowance of the exemption on that ground, and that in the absence of scrutiny under section 143(2), the denial was not justified. Refusal to rectify the intimation under section 154 was therefore unsustainable, and relief under section 10(25)(ii) followed. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 18 Nov 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=415873