<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2009 (1) TMI 276 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35401</link>
    <description>Exemption under section 11 could not be denied merely because the original return was belated and the audit report was not filed with it, where a revised return was filed before assessment and supported by the report. The Court treated the audit report requirement as procedural on the facts and held that the Assessing Officer wrongly ignored the revised return as non est. It also noted that the Department should have sought the relevant information before refusing exemption. The assessee remained entitled to the statutory relief, so the deletion of the addition was upheld and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 09 Jan 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 02 Jul 2026 12:08:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=73988" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (1) TMI 276 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35401</link>
      <description>Exemption under section 11 could not be denied merely because the original return was belated and the audit report was not filed with it, where a revised return was filed before assessment and supported by the report. The Court treated the audit report requirement as procedural on the facts and held that the Assessing Officer wrongly ignored the revised return as non est. It also noted that the Department should have sought the relevant information before refusing exemption. The assessee remained entitled to the statutory relief, so the deletion of the addition was upheld and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 09 Jan 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35401</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>