https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780701 Bombay HC condoned a 384-day delay in filing Form No.9A and quashed the order denying exemption under s.11, finding the Petitioner-Trust would suffer grave hardship due to an inadvertent error by its erstwhile chartered accountant. Relying on the accountant's affidavit and consistent Bombay HC and Gujarat HC precedents, the court held that denial of exemption solely on limitation grounds was inequitable and that authorities have discretion to condone delay. The impugned order dated 15 Mar 2025 under s.119(2)(b) of the IT Act was set aside. en-us Mon, 13 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 04 Nov 2025 08:03:32 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780701 Bombay HC condoned a 384-day delay in filing Form No.9A and quashed the order denying exemption under s.11, finding the Petitioner-Trust would suffer grave hardship due to an inadvertent error by its erstwhile chartered accountant. Relying on the accountant's affidavit and consistent Bombay HC and Gujarat HC precedents, the court held that denial of exemption solely on limitation grounds was inequitable and that authorities have discretion to condone delay. The impugned order dated 15 Mar 2025 under s.119(2)(b) of the IT Act was set aside. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 13 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780701