<?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>2025 (6) TMI 417 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772304</link>
    <description>The SC addressed two key issues regarding Section 10AA deduction under the Income Tax Act. The court ruled that delayed filing of Form 56F is a procedural lapse and does not invalidate the deduction claim. The filing of Form 56F was deemed directory, not mandatory, allowing the assessee to claim the deduction despite late submission of the audit report. The court emphasized substantive compliance over strict procedural adherence.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 03 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 06 Jun 2025 08:30:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=827082" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (6) TMI 417 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772304</link>
      <description>The SC addressed two key issues regarding Section 10AA deduction under the Income Tax Act. The court ruled that delayed filing of Form 56F is a procedural lapse and does not invalidate the deduction claim. The filing of Form 56F was deemed directory, not mandatory, allowing the assessee to claim the deduction despite late submission of the audit report. The court emphasized substantive compliance over strict procedural adherence.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 03 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772304</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>