<?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>2026 (6) TMI 1441 - ITAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794060</link>
    <description>Belated filing of Form 10BB did not, by itself, justify denial of exemption under Section 10(23C)(vi) where the report was already available at the time of return processing and the return was filed within the extended due date; the filing requirement was treated as procedural and directory, so the exemption claim had to be reconsidered afresh. Expenditure also could not be disallowed as a prima facie adjustment under Section 143(1) merely because the exemption claim was not accepted, since the related receipts could not be taxed without allowing the corresponding expenditure. The intimation-based disallowance was therefore not sustained and the matter was remitted for fresh adjudication.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 23 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +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=909085" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (6) TMI 1441 - ITAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794060</link>
      <description>Belated filing of Form 10BB did not, by itself, justify denial of exemption under Section 10(23C)(vi) where the report was already available at the time of return processing and the return was filed within the extended due date; the filing requirement was treated as procedural and directory, so the exemption claim had to be reconsidered afresh. Expenditure also could not be disallowed as a prima facie adjustment under Section 143(1) merely because the exemption claim was not accepted, since the related receipts could not be taxed without allowing the corresponding expenditure. The intimation-based disallowance was therefore not sustained and the matter was remitted for fresh adjudication.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 23 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794060</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>