https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31810 Section 10B(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was treated as directory rather than mandatory, because it was read in pari materia with earlier exemption provisions, including Sections 80IA(7), 80HHB(3)(ia) and 80J(6A), which had already been construed the same way. Filing the audit report before completion of assessment was held to amount to sufficient compliance, so the assessee could not be denied the benefit merely because the report did not accompany the return. The Revenue's objection was rejected, and no substantial question of law arose. en-us Fri, 12 Dec 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 18 Dec 2008 00:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31810 Section 10B(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was treated as directory rather than mandatory, because it was read in pari materia with earlier exemption provisions, including Sections 80IA(7), 80HHB(3)(ia) and 80J(6A), which had already been construed the same way. Filing the audit report before completion of assessment was held to amount to sufficient compliance, so the assessee could not be denied the benefit merely because the report did not accompany the return. The Revenue's objection was rejected, and no substantial question of law arose. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 12 Dec 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31810