https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767601 ITAT Mumbai set aside CIT(E)'s rejection of section 80G application due to clerical error where assessee incorrectly mentioned clause (ii) instead of clause (iii) of first proviso to section 80G(5) in Form 10AB. Tribunal held the error was inadvertent and clerical, noting CIT(E) failed to provide opportunity for rectification. Matter restored to CIT(E) with directions to allow assessee to file revised application under correct clause (iii) and decide accordingly. Appeal allowed for statistical purposes. en-us Fri, 28 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 21 Mar 2025 08:25:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767601 ITAT Mumbai set aside CIT(E)'s rejection of section 80G application due to clerical error where assessee incorrectly mentioned clause (ii) instead of clause (iii) of first proviso to section 80G(5) in Form 10AB. Tribunal held the error was inadvertent and clerical, noting CIT(E) failed to provide opportunity for rectification. Matter restored to CIT(E) with directions to allow assessee to file revised application under correct clause (iii) and decide accordingly. Appeal allowed for statistical purposes. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 28 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767601