Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether deduction under section 80JJAA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 could be denied solely because Form No. 10DA was filed after the prescribed time, though before processing of the return under section 143(1) and while the substantive conditions for the deduction stood satisfied.
Analysis: The assessee had fulfilled the substantive conditions for claiming deduction under section 80JJAA, and there was no dispute regarding eligibility or the quantum of additional employee cost. The only objection was the timing of filing Form No. 10DA. The form was filed before the return was processed under section 143(1), and the defect, if any, was technical in nature. The governing approach, as reflected in the cited precedents, is that the requirement to furnish the prescribed form or audit report within time is procedural, whereas the underlying entitlement to deduction depends on substantive compliance. Where the form is available on record before completion of the relevant processing and no prejudice is caused to the Revenue, the deduction cannot be refused merely for delayed filing.
Conclusion: The deduction under section 80JJAA could not be denied on the ground of delayed filing of Form No. 10DA, and the disallowance was liable to be deleted.
Ratio Decidendi: A deduction otherwise valid on substantive compliance cannot be denied merely because the prescribed audit form was filed belatedly, if it was available on record before the return was processed and the delay is only procedural.