https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=28918 The court upheld the Income Tax Officer's decision, ruling that the registration of the firm would not be valid for the relevant assessment year due to the failure to rectify a defect within the specified period. The Tribunal supported the ITO's decision overruling the Appellate Authority Commissioner's reliance on Circular No. 105 issued by the CBDT to condone the delay in filing the declaration for continuation of registration. The court clarified that a circular from 1973 did not directly apply to the case, ultimately ruling in favor of the Revenue Department and allowing them to claim costs. en-us Mon, 12 Oct 1981 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 08 Mar 2010 16:25:12 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=28918 The court upheld the Income Tax Officer's decision, ruling that the registration of the firm would not be valid for the relevant assessment year due to the failure to rectify a defect within the specified period. The Tribunal supported the ITO's decision overruling the Appellate Authority Commissioner's reliance on Circular No. 105 issued by the CBDT to condone the delay in filing the declaration for continuation of registration. The court clarified that a circular from 1973 did not directly apply to the case, ultimately ruling in favor of the Revenue Department and allowing them to claim costs. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 12 Oct 1981 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=28918