<?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>2019 (12) TMI 1698 - ITAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465541</link>
    <description>A taxpayer claiming to be a charitable trust sought rectification under s.154 against an intimation u/s 143(1), contending that lack of s.12AA registration could bar exemption for application of income but not deduction of revenue expenses (salaries, interest, depreciation, administrative costs) newly claimed outside the return. The Tribunal held no &quot;mistake apparent&quot; existed because no material showed any prior scrutiny of activities or acceptance of genuineness, nor that later s.12AA registration implied pending assessment proceedings for the relevant year; rectification relief was therefore refused. It further held that, absent a revised return, neither the AO nor first appellate authority could admit a fresh deduction claim, applying SC in Goetze; both appeals were dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 30 Dec 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 30 Dec 2025 19:04:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=874852" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (12) TMI 1698 - ITAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465541</link>
      <description>A taxpayer claiming to be a charitable trust sought rectification under s.154 against an intimation u/s 143(1), contending that lack of s.12AA registration could bar exemption for application of income but not deduction of revenue expenses (salaries, interest, depreciation, administrative costs) newly claimed outside the return. The Tribunal held no &quot;mistake apparent&quot; existed because no material showed any prior scrutiny of activities or acceptance of genuineness, nor that later s.12AA registration implied pending assessment proceedings for the relevant year; rectification relief was therefore refused. It further held that, absent a revised return, neither the AO nor first appellate authority could admit a fresh deduction claim, applying SC in Goetze; both appeals were dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 30 Dec 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465541</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>