https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462885 ITAT Nagpur (AT) allowed the appeal, holding that the rejection of registration based on an erroneous choice of provision was not an incurable defect and did not reflect issues with the genuineness of objects or compliance with law. The tribunal found the CIT(E) had no authority to expand the limited grounds of rejection, and that entitlement to final registration (notwithstanding a provisional registration and separate taxability considerations) should be recognized. The impugned order was set aside and the authorities directed to grant registration; all grounds of the assessee were allowed. en-us Mon, 27 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 10 Nov 2025 11:54:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462885 ITAT Nagpur (AT) allowed the appeal, holding that the rejection of registration based on an erroneous choice of provision was not an incurable defect and did not reflect issues with the genuineness of objects or compliance with law. The tribunal found the CIT(E) had no authority to expand the limited grounds of rejection, and that entitlement to final registration (notwithstanding a provisional registration and separate taxability considerations) should be recognized. The impugned order was set aside and the authorities directed to grant registration; all grounds of the assessee were allowed. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 27 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462885