https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=427468 An exemption claim under section 10(25) could not be denied in summary processing under section 143(1) merely because the return used an abbreviated name. The return disclosed the exemption claim, and the assessee was already recognised as a provident fund under the relevant statutory regime. A debatable or verifiable claim cannot be rejected through a processing-stage adjustment and requires examination in regular assessment. The denial was therefore beyond the scope of section 143(1), and the exemption relief was allowed. en-us Thu, 08 Sep 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 09 Sep 2022 07:05:12 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=427468 An exemption claim under section 10(25) could not be denied in summary processing under section 143(1) merely because the return used an abbreviated name. The return disclosed the exemption claim, and the assessee was already recognised as a provident fund under the relevant statutory regime. A debatable or verifiable claim cannot be rejected through a processing-stage adjustment and requires examination in regular assessment. The denial was therefore beyond the scope of section 143(1), and the exemption relief was allowed. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 08 Sep 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=427468