<?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>2024 (3) TMI 1201 - ITAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=750704</link>
    <description>ITAT Chennai held that a trust&#039;s belated filing of Form 10AB under section 80G should not result in automatic rejection. The assessee trust commenced activities in July 2017 and received provisional approval under section 80G(5)(iv) but filed the renewal application beyond statutory timelines. The tribunal noted CBDT Circular 6/2023 extended deadlines for similar forms recognizing genuine hardship faced by charitable institutions. Finding no distinction between different provisions under section 80G(5), the tribunal ruled the timeline should be treated as directory rather than mandatory, especially given the transitional nature of amendments. The matter was remanded to CIT(Exemptions) for decision on merits rather than technical grounds.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 08 Mar 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 05 Aug 2024 13:04:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=748368" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (3) TMI 1201 - ITAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=750704</link>
      <description>ITAT Chennai held that a trust&#039;s belated filing of Form 10AB under section 80G should not result in automatic rejection. The assessee trust commenced activities in July 2017 and received provisional approval under section 80G(5)(iv) but filed the renewal application beyond statutory timelines. The tribunal noted CBDT Circular 6/2023 extended deadlines for similar forms recognizing genuine hardship faced by charitable institutions. Finding no distinction between different provisions under section 80G(5), the tribunal ruled the timeline should be treated as directory rather than mandatory, especially given the transitional nature of amendments. The matter was remanded to CIT(Exemptions) for decision on merits rather than technical grounds.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 08 Mar 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=750704</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>