https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780414 ITAT upheld that the CIT(E) rejected the assessee's application under s.80G(5) because Form No.10AB showed religious expenditure exceeding 5%, but noted the assessee's claim that the entry was a clerical error and that audited accounts did not show such expenditure. Finding self-contradictory entries in the Form and absence of explanation before the CIT(E), ITAT set aside the matter and remanded to the file of the CIT(E) to allow the assessee one more opportunity to rectify Form 10AB and furnish supporting documents, subject to payment of costs. en-us Wed, 09 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 30 Oct 2025 08:22:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780414 ITAT upheld that the CIT(E) rejected the assessee's application under s.80G(5) because Form No.10AB showed religious expenditure exceeding 5%, but noted the assessee's claim that the entry was a clerical error and that audited accounts did not show such expenditure. Finding self-contradictory entries in the Form and absence of explanation before the CIT(E), ITAT set aside the matter and remanded to the file of the CIT(E) to allow the assessee one more opportunity to rectify Form 10AB and furnish supporting documents, subject to payment of costs. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 09 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780414