TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (10) TMI 80
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....C, Bengaluru for the assessment year 2017-18 vide order dated 25.03.2019. 2. At the outset it is noticed that this appeal is time barred by 352 days as the order of CIT(A) was received by assessee on 07.02.2020 and appeal was to be filed before Tribunal on or before 08.04.2020, instead the appeal was filed by assessee only on 25.03.2020 thereby delay of 352 days. The Ld.counsel for the assessee stated that the delay was due to the spread of Covid-19 pandemic and nationwide lockdown imposed by the Government from 25.03.2020. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Miscellaneous Application No.665 of 2021 vide order dated 23.03.2020 has given directions that the delay are to be condoned during this period 15.03.2020 to 14.03.2021 and they have condoned....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eduction, which is impugned intimation u/s.143(1) of the Act. This return was revised by the assessee within the time limit available u/s.139(5) of the Act. The Department processed the return of income i.e., revised return filed on 28.05.2018, only on 23.05.2019 when the audit report in Form No.10CCB was available with the Department. It means that the Department has disallowed the claim of deduction even though the assessee was entitled for claim of deduction. This issue has been covered in favour of assessee and against the Revenue by the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs. Shanthi Gears Ltd., in ITA No.3068/CHNY/2017, order dated 04.03.2022, wherein the Tribunal considered various case laws consider....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....National Thermal Power Company Limited Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax in Tax Ref. Case No.4 of 1988 dated 04.12.1996. [6] Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Jayant Patel in Tax Case No.1742 of 1986 dated 21.09.1998. 7. The learned Counsel for the Assessee particularly referred to the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of DCIT, Mumbai Vs. M/s. JSW Infrastructure Limited, Mumbai (supra), wherein exactly identical issue was considered and decided in favour of the Assessee, wherein the Tribunal vide paragraph no.9 as under: "9. We have heard both the parties, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below along with case laws cited by both parties. We find that the learn....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....filed, thereafter before completion of assessment proceedings is to be considered by the Assessing Officer, because the Act has been given opportunity to the Assessee to file revised return u/s.139(4) for removal of any defect or any omissions in the original return and that if both the returns were filed within time limit prescribed under the law, then conditions prescribed u/s.80IB(1)) of the I.T.Act, 1961 are fulfilled. In this case, the Assessee has filed a return u/s.139(1) within due date specified date, but the claim for deduction u/s.80IA, in respect of second unit was not made, however a revised return was filed u/s.139(5) within due date specified under the Act and made additional claim for deduction, in respect of second unit. Wh....