<?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>Form 10B reconciliation and income application claims sustained after duplicate computation was corrected in charitable assessment proceedings.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=101195</link>
    <description>In a charitable institution&#039;s assessment, the Tribunal held that application of current-year income and accumulated funds, as separately disclosed in the return and Form 10B and verified in scrutiny, could not be disallowed on a supposed mismatch; once the Assessing Officer recorded that there was no difference between the two, the earlier prima facie adjustment under section 143(1) had no surviving basis and the claim was allowed in full. It also held that no fresh claim was being raised on appeal, so Goetze (India) was inapplicable. The final computation wrongly duplicated the same income components, inflating the taxable base; tax under section 115BBI and interest under sections 234B and 234C were consequential and had to be recomputed. The appeal was allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 29 Jun 2026 09:28:31 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 29 Jun 2026 09:28:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=909048" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Form 10B reconciliation and income application claims sustained after duplicate computation was corrected in charitable assessment proceedings.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=101195</link>
      <description>In a charitable institution&#039;s assessment, the Tribunal held that application of current-year income and accumulated funds, as separately disclosed in the return and Form 10B and verified in scrutiny, could not be disallowed on a supposed mismatch; once the Assessing Officer recorded that there was no difference between the two, the earlier prima facie adjustment under section 143(1) had no surviving basis and the claim was allowed in full. It also held that no fresh claim was being raised on appeal, so Goetze (India) was inapplicable. The final computation wrongly duplicated the same income components, inflating the taxable base; tax under section 115BBI and interest under sections 234B and 234C were consequential and had to be recomputed. The appeal was allowed.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 29 Jun 2026 09:28:31 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=101195</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>