<?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 (11) TMI 1415 - ITAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460254</link>
    <description>Delayed filing of Form No. 10B was treated as a procedural defect where the audit report was already on record before appellate proceedings were completed. Applying binding jurisdictional precedent, the procedural delay could not defeat the substantive claim for exemption under section 11 when the audit requirement had in substance been complied with. The assessee was therefore held eligible for section 11 exemption, and the disallowance was not sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 21 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 17 Jan 2025 12:17:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=789730" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (11) TMI 1415 - ITAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460254</link>
      <description>Delayed filing of Form No. 10B was treated as a procedural defect where the audit report was already on record before appellate proceedings were completed. Applying binding jurisdictional precedent, the procedural delay could not defeat the substantive claim for exemption under section 11 when the audit requirement had in substance been complied with. The assessee was therefore held eligible for section 11 exemption, and the disallowance was not sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 21 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460254</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>