https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758031 ITAT Chennai-AT allowed assessee's appeal regarding rejection of Form 10AB application for approval under section 80G(5)(iii). The CIT(E) had rejected the application citing violation of mandatory timelines. The tribunal held that the timeline prescribed under clause (iii) of first proviso to section 80G(5) should be treated as directory rather than mandatory, considering the transitional nature of amendments brought by the Taxation Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act 2020. Following precedent from coordinate bench decision, the tribunal ruled that rejection based solely on technical timeline violations was improper. en-us Wed, 24 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 05 Sep 2024 18:22:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758031 ITAT Chennai-AT allowed assessee's appeal regarding rejection of Form 10AB application for approval under section 80G(5)(iii). The CIT(E) had rejected the application citing violation of mandatory timelines. The tribunal held that the timeline prescribed under clause (iii) of first proviso to section 80G(5) should be treated as directory rather than mandatory, considering the transitional nature of amendments brought by the Taxation Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act 2020. Following precedent from coordinate bench decision, the tribunal ruled that rejection based solely on technical timeline violations was improper. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 24 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758031