TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (1) TMI 1569
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... The revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. That the Ld. Addl. CIT(A) has erred in facts and in law by stating that denial of deduction under section 80JJAA lacks validity without discussing the case on merits on the basis of documentary evidences. 2. That the Ld. Addl. CIT(A) has erred in facts and in law by stating that the adjustment made by the AO(CPC) adding back the negative amount of Rs. 14,37,45,699/- is not justifiable Besides such adjustments are not permissible under section 143(1) of the I.T Act without discussing the case on merits on the basis of documentary evidences 2.1 The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal in its cross objection: 1. That the orders of the Learned Authorities below in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce the office of DCIT was under additional charge because regular officer was on official training, hence the delay of one day occurred. Considering the fact that it is a case of short delay of just 1 day, we hereby condone the delay and proceed to decide the matter in the interest of justice. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee company engaged in the business of providing IT Infrastructure management services, Technical Support services etc. The assessee filed its original income tax return for the Assessment Year (A.Y) 2023-24 on 30.11.2023 declaring a total income of Rs. 1,54,57,78,798/- with Tax Liability of Rs. 35,45,45,411/-. Subsequently, the assessee filed a revised return of income on 22.12.2023 admitting to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t any valid reasons and accordingly, directed the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) to delete the above addition of Rs. 14,37,45,699/-. 6.1 Further, with regard to the denial of deduction under section 80JJAA of the Act amounting to Rs. 1,12,46,618/-, the ld. ADDL./JCIT (A)-2, Chennai noted from the original income tax return filed for A.Y. 2023-24 on 30.11.2023, that the appellant has opted for the concessional tax regime under section 115BAA of the IT Act, as indicated in the Col No. (e) of the "Filing Status". Furthermore, it is observed that the appellant had previously opted for concessional tax regime based on Form 10IC filed in the assessment year 2020-21, acknowledged under ack no. 254965001130221 dated 13.02.2021. T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Act which is a gross violation of principle of natural justice and accordingly, prays to quash the intimation passed u/s. 143(1) of the Act. 10. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The main contention of the revenue in their appeal is that the ld. ADDL. CIT(A), lacks validity in allowing the appeal of the assessee without discussing the case on merit on the basis of documentary evidences. It is an undisputed fact that the assessee filed the appeal before the ld. ADDL./JCIT (A) against the intimation passed u/s. 143(1) of the Act. We are of the opinion that where return has been made u/s. 139 or in response to notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act, such returns are only processed under the provisions of sec. 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s elaborately discussed on the merits of the case. In the case of the ICDS adjustment of Rs. 14,37,45,699/- which has been added back u/s. 143(1) of the Act, we are completely in agreement with the view of the ld. ADDL./JCIT (A)-2, Chennai in observing that the ICDS adjustments were made under the head ICDS-I & ICDS-VI which relates to accounting policies and changes in the exchange rates. As per the adjustment, the net negative effect of Rs. 14,37,45,699/- was considered by the assessee while computing total income for the AY 2023-24. We also concur with the opinion of the ld. ADDL./JCIT (A)-2, Chennai that as the assessee has reported the necessary adjustments under Col. No. 13(e) of the audit report disclosing the necessary ICD....