TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (8) TMI 621
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ertaining to A.Y. 2022-23 arising out the assessment order dated 24-08-2023 under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (in short 'the Act'). 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds in appeal: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case & in law, the impugned intimation order issued by the Ld. CPC dated July 29, 2023, is erroneous and bad in law as the adjustment was made to the income of the Appellant and is liable to be deleted. 2. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A)/Ld. CPC grossly erred in disallowing deduction of INR 13,49,58,036 under section 80JJAA of the Act claimed by the Appellant without appreciating the Appellant has duly filed Form 10DA in compliance with Rule ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../s 80JJAA of the Act which was duly reported in the tax audit report filed for the A.Y.2022-23. The assessee did not file the Form 10DA with the original return of income but filed with the revised return of income. He also submitted that the requirement of furnishing auditors report in the Form 10DA for the deduction u/s 80JJAA of the Act is a directory in nature and therefore merely because Form 10D A was filed after filing the original return of income cannot be the ground for denial of deduction entitled to the assessee. The assessee filed the revised return of income on 28-12-2022 and return of income was processed by the CPC on 29-03-2023 after submitting the Form no. 10DA. He further submitted that the CPC has wrongly denied the dedu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rn of income, but the same was filed before the final order of assessment was made, the assessee was entitled to claim deduction under section 80-IB. 6. Reliance has placed on the following decisions: (i) IIFL Samasta Finance Limited v. DCIT ITA No. 18/BANG/2025 in this case the Hon'ble Bangalore ITAT bench held as under : 9.5 Now coming to the issue whether requirement of furnishing the report of an Accountant in form 10DA on or before the due date is mandatory to claim the deduction u/s 80JJA of the Act? We are of the considered opinion that obviously the requirement of furnishing the report of an accountant is mandatory, however the filing thereof is a procedural aspect. Once the report of the Accountant in Form 10DA....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... costs." 2. We concur with the aforesaid view of the High Court and hold that even if Form 3AA was not filed along with return of income but the same was filed during the assessment proceedings and before the final order of the assessment was made that would amount to sufficient compliance. These appeals are, accordingly, dismissed." 9.6 Respectfully, following the decision of the Apex court and considering the facts that the assessee is claiming the deduction from the Asst. year 2019-20 onwards & the Form 10DA for the Asst. year 2023-24 was filed even before the due date of filing the return and the same was also part of the record of the AO during the processing of the return of income, the AO could not have denied the d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... such employment is provided. (2) No deduction under sub-section (1) shall be allowed (a) if the business is formed by splitting up, or the reconstruction, of an existing business: Provided that nothing contained in this clause shall apply in respect of a business which is formed as a result of re-establishment, reconstruction or revival by the assessee of the business in the circumstances and within the period specified in section 33B; (b) if the business is acquired by the assessee by way of transfer from any other person or as a result of any business reorganization; (c) unless the assessee furnishes the report of the accountant, as defined in the Explanation below subsection (2) of section 28....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eld that "If object of the enactment will be defeated by holding the same directory, it will be constructed as mandatory, whereas if by holding it mandatory, serious general inconvenience will be created to innocent persons without very much furthering the object of enactment, the same will be constructed as directory . .. Thus the use of the words 'as nearly as may be 'in contrast to the words' at least' will prima facie indicate a directory, requirement negative words a mandatory requirement 'may' a directory requirement and shall a mandatory requirement" 2. PCIT v. Wipro Ltd. {Civil Appeal No. 1449 of 2022} 3. Solapur dist MSK Samiti H Master t and NT v ITO Ward no 2 ITA No. 804/Pun /2023 4. In the cas....