https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=37000 Continuance of firm registration under the Income-tax Act depended on compliance with both statutory conditions: filing the return of income under section 139(2) and furnishing the prescribed declaration in Form No. 12 under section 184(7). The declaration was mandatory and renewal was not automatic, while the return filing requirement was equally obligatory. The fact that one document could be filed before the other did not excuse non-compliance with either condition. Because the firm failed to satisfy both requirements, it was disentitled to continuance of registration and refusal of renewal was , as stated in the source text. en-us Fri, 04 Jan 1980 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 25 Mar 2010 17:36:12 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=37000 Continuance of firm registration under the Income-tax Act depended on compliance with both statutory conditions: filing the return of income under section 139(2) and furnishing the prescribed declaration in Form No. 12 under section 184(7). The declaration was mandatory and renewal was not automatic, while the return filing requirement was equally obligatory. The fact that one document could be filed before the other did not excuse non-compliance with either condition. Because the firm failed to satisfy both requirements, it was disentitled to continuance of registration and refusal of renewal was , as stated in the source text. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 04 Jan 1980 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=37000