TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 665
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....)(a) of the Act by the CPC making certain adjustments which were challenged before the Ld. CIT(A) and assessee has been granted relief. Against such relief granted by Ld. CIT(A), Revenue is in appeal vide ITA No. 1256/PUN/2023. Further, post selection of the assessee's case for complete scrutiny, a final assessment order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Act has been framed on 30/06/2022 making various additions and adjustments against which assessee has preferred appeal before this Tribunal vide ITA No. 632/PUN/2022. 3. First we will take up assessee's appeal in ITA No. 632/PUN/2022. 4. Brief facts of the case as culled out from the records are that assessee is a limited company and declared income of Rs. 420,19,55,310/- in the return of income for A.Y. 2018-19 e-filed on 01/12/2018 which was subsequently revised on 23/03/2019 and again revised on 23/08/2019 showing total income of Rs. 527,10,75,950/-. The return has been processed by CPC u/s. 143(1)(a) of the Act determining income at Rs. 724,67,72,290/-, after making two adjustments, firstly, denied deduction claimed u/s. 80JJA at Rs. 60,72,090/- and also denied claim of deduction u/s. 10AA at Rs. 196,96,24,249/-, both on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....T 47,55,629/- iii Assessed Book Profit 820,03,81,663/- 13.2 Since, the tax liability u/s. 115JB of the I.T. Act, 1961 of the assessee company will come less than the tax on regular income, the tax liability of the assessee company is worked out under normal provisions of Income. 14. Assessed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144C(13) of the IT ACT, 1961. Give credit for prepaid taxes after due verification. Charge interest under section 234A, 234B, 234C & 234D if applicable. Issue demand noticed and challan accordingly. Issue Penalty notice under section 274 r.w.s. 270A of the Income Tax Act 1961, separately for mis-reporting and under-reporting of income. 6. Aggrieved by the assessment order, assessee now is in appeal ITA No.632/PUN/2022 before this Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal:- "Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, Cummins India Limited (hereinafter referred to as "the Company" or "the Appellant" or "Cummins India") respectfully craves leave to prefer an appeal for the assessment year ("AY") 2018-19 under section 253 of the income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") against the order dated 30 June 2022, passed under section 143(3) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Appellant, in the Transfer Pricing documentation, wherein the payment of royalty was aggregated with the manufacturing activity for determining the arm's length price. 3.2 The Ld. AD pursuant to the directions of the Hon'ble DRP erred in law and on the facts and in circumstances of the case in not following the principle of consistency and rejecting the aggregation approach (which has been accepted in the earlier years by the learned AO/Transfer Pricing Officer and Hon'ble DRP) for benchmarking the impugned transaction of payment of royalty for use of technology 4. Erroneous dissection of payment of royalty for benchmarking: 4.1 Without prejudice to the other grounds raised by the Appellant, the Ld. AO pursuant to the directions of the Hon'ble DRP erred in law and on the facts and in circumstances of the case, by questioning the commercial wisdom of the Appellant and dissecting the international transaction of payment of royalty for use of technology, into royalty paid on sales made to domestic customers and royalty paid on sales made to export customers, while benchmarking the impugned transaction. 5. Not establishing the crit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urred by the Appellant. 8.2 The Appellant submits that considering the facts and circumstances of its case and the law prevailing on the subject, it is inter-alia eligible for a weighted deduction of Rs. 26,21,95,429/- u/s. 35(2AB) of the Act on the expenditure of Rs. 13,10,97,715/- incurred by it, and the stand taken by the Ld. AO/Hon'ble DRP in this regard is illegal, incorrect, erroneous and misconceived. 8.3 The Appellant submits that the Ld. AO be directed to grant weighted deduction on the amount of expenditure incurred by the Appellant u/s 35/2AB) of the Act and to re-compute its total income and tax liability accordingly. 9. Disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act 9.1 The Ld. AO/Hon'ble DRP has erred in disallowing a further sum of INR 47,55,629/- u/s 14A of the Act r.w.r. BD of the Income- tax Rules, 1962. 9.2 The Appellant submits that considering the facts and circumstances of its case and the law prevailing on the subject no further disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act is called for in addition to the amount of INR 48,48,551/- suo-moto disallowed by the Appellant and the stand taken by the Ld. AO/Hon'ble DRP in this regard i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ound No.1 and, therefore, the same is dismissed as not pressed. 8. So far as ground Nos. 2 to 5 raised by the assessee are concerned, the same relates to international transaction of payment of royalty for use of technology used for manufacturing of goods. Ld. DRP has affirmed the TP adjustments proposed by the Ld.AO based on the TPO's report. Finding of the Ld. DRP on the said addition on account of international transaction of payment of royalty reads as under:- "11.4.1 It is seen that similar adjustment had been proposed by the TPO in respect of the international transaction pertaining to payment of royalty for use of technology in the case of the assessee for earlier years and that the assessee had taken identical grounds of objection before DRP for A.Y. 2017-18 against such adjustment proposed by the TPO for the said year. After considering the facts of the case and objections of the assessee, the DRP had upheld similar adjustment proposed by the TPO for A.Y. 2017-18, observing as under: "3.4.1 The assessee, as per the Transfer Pricing Study Report (TPSR), operates both in India and overseas markets. While the domestic sales are made to third party custome....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of 1.43% on domestic sale and at the rate of 7.96% on export sales. During the course of the transfer pricing proceedings, in response to a show cause notice issued by the TPO, the assessee had conducted a search for independent five royalty agreements and as per the search results, the arm's length average margin of royalty payments worked out to 4.10%. However, the TPO was of the view that one more comparable, excluded by the assessee, should also be included in the comparables list and after including it, he found that the arm's length royalty rate worked out to 2.75%. Accordingly, the TPO issued a show cause notice requiring the assessee to explain the transaction of royalty payment on export sales should not be segregated and the arm's length royalty rate should not be considered at 2.75%. The assessee filed detailed submissions before the TPO, in response to the said show cause notice. 3.4.4 The TPO rejected various contentions raised by the assessee before him. The assessee had contended that the transaction relating to payment of royalty was closely linked to its manufacturing activity, and, hence, the transaction should be aggregated with other transac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....technology is being received and applied on various products that are sold in domestic as well as export markets, and, therefore, the rate of royalty should also be same and that in line with uncontrolled transactions. The TPO held the view that such high variation in royalty rates for same/similar technology received is unreasonable. The assessee had also contended before the TPO that for calculating the effective rate of royalty, the net sales at entity level should be considered. However, the TPO held that when actual bifurcation of royalty on domestic and export market is available, the effective rate should be calculated at overall domestic and export segment level, which was, accordingly, calculated by him at the rate of 0.97% and 6.00% on domestic sales and export sales, respectively. While doing so, the TPO considered the net export sales at 628.61 Cr., as against Rs. 474.12 Cr. proposed by him in the show cause notice, accepting the objection raised by the assessee in this regard. Further, he considered the arm's length royalty rate at 4.10%, as per the results of the search conducted by the assessee during the TP proceedings. Accordingly, the TPO worked out the excess....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e technology received from the AE is used by the assessee for manufacture of the products sold in the domestic market and export market. By charging/ paying royalty at much higher rate on export sales and lower rates on domestic sales, the AE and the assessee have ensured higher amount of royalty can be paid, but, at the same time, the total royalty payment can be claimed to be arm's length, by considering both the domestic sales and export sales, thereby adjusting the low profit/loss earned (on account of royalty payment) from the export sales (the bulk of which are made to the AEs). In other words, the assessee and its AE have arranged the transaction of payment of royalty for use of technology in such way that though the royalty is paid at higher rate as compared to the arm's length rate of royalty, it can still claim the payment to be at arm's length. Though the assessee has entered into a single agreement for payment of royalty with its AE, in our view, it actually involves two transactions of (i) payment of royalty on domestic sales and (ii) payment of royalty on export sales, as two different prices have been charged on domestic sales and export sales. A single t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....same, profitability from other unrelated transactions subsumes the profit/loss from the related party transactions being analyzed and examination of the profit at a very broad level masks the arm's length price of the related party transaction and does not lead to correct determination of its ALP. The TPO is of the view that in order to determine the most precise approximation of arm's length conditions, the arm's length principle should be applied on a transaction-by-transaction basis, unless the transactions are closely related. In the case of the assessee, the royalty transactions do not in any manner impact or influence the pricing of the sale price or other transactions in the manufacturing segment. Therefore, aggregation of royalty transactions with other transactions in such situation would be incorrect. 2.4.3 Section 92C(1) refers to arm's length price in relation to an international transaction. Rule 10B(1) (e) read with section 92C deals with TNMM and it refers to only net profit margin realized by enterprise from an international transaction or a class of such transaction. The Hon'ble ITAT in case of UCB India (P) Ltd. V ACIT (2009) 30SOT 95 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....roach for benchmarking are M/s Twinkle Diamond (2010-TII-09-ITAT-Mum-TP), Tez Diamond (2009-TII-02-ITAT-Mum-TP) and the case of Starlite Pvt Ltd. (2010-TII-28-ITAT-Mum-TP). The transaction of 'Payment of fees for IGS is also considered separately for the purpose of transfer pricing analysis. A separate benchmarking of the services is also supported by the recent Punjab & Haryana High Court's decision rendered in the case of Knorr-Bremse India (P) Ltd. vs ACIT[2016] 380ITR 307(P&H) and Delhi High Court's decision in the case of Denso India Ltd. vs ACIT(ITA No. 443/2013 and ITA No. 451/2013). The Delhi Tribunal in case of ITW India Ltd [TS-128-ITAT- 2015(HYD)-TP] held against the taxpayer by not agreeing to adoption of combined TNMM on an entity level in respect of six separate sets of distinct international transactions. Purchase of raw materials, purchase of plant & machinery, commission expenses, sale of finished goods, commission income and reimbursement of expenses. The Delhi Tribunal held that the arm's length price of more than one transaction can be determined as one unit, only if they are closely linked transactions. In such a case, the plural of internationa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eferring to the Pune ITAT order in the present facts would be incorrect. 2.4.8 Here, it is also pointed out that at present, only the assessee has a right to appeal against the final assessment order framed by the AO after incorporating the directions of the DRP and the Department does not have any such right of appeal. It is also seen that in the case of the assessee for A.Y. 2015-16, the DRP had decided this issue against the assessee, and the appeal filed by the assessee for A.Y.2015-16 is pending before the ITAT. Therefore, notwithstanding the observation made in para 2.4.7 above, if we decide this issue against the Department and in favour of the assessee, the Department will not be in a position to take its stand on the issue before higher appellate forums, and if the issue is eventually decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in favour of the Department, there will be no recourse available for collecting the revenue attributable to the said issue in the case of the assessee. Accordingly, with due respect to the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT, we are of the humble view that no interference to the order of Ld. TPO is called for on this issue. 2.4.8 In view....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ricing adjustments. The appeals were admitted on 11th April 2023 and in the three appeals, the following three questions of law were framed:- "(1) Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law in passing the order dated 28th September 2022 directly contrary to the view taken by the Appellate Tribunal in Appellant's own case for earlier assessment years on identical facts and law without referring the issue to a Special (Full) Bench in the event that it wished to differ from the view taken by a co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal ? (ii) Whether the order dated 28th September 2022 passed by the Appellate Tribunal is bad in law as the same is passed ignoring the fact that on the very same transaction the department has accepted the methodology applied by the Appellate for benchmarking the transactions for transfer pricing purposes in seven (7) earlier years in view of inter alia binding order of the Tribunal? (iii) Whether in the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal erred in passing the impugned order dated 28th September 2022 purporting to rely on decision of Delhi High Court in the case of Magneti Marelli Power Train India....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fees. During the transfer pricing proceedings, Assessee was unable to substantiate the need for payment of technical assistance fees to its foreign associate Enterprise and the TPO had observed that Assessee did not undertake any cost benefit analysis or any benchmarking exercise at the time of entering into the agreement. The court observed that the initial burden is upon Assessee to prove that the international transaction was at ALP but Assessee was unable to explain why he had paid technical assistance fee which did not form part of composite transaction. But in the case at hand, the assessing officer has accepted that Assessee had received technology from Cummins Inc. Associate Enterprise and the rate of royalty payment was made on exports. The TPO has also accepted that Assessee has used the TNMM method as the most appropriate method to benchmark its international transactions under the manufacturing activity including royalty that it had paid on the export sales as well. The TPO has accepted the TNMM method as the most appropriate method to benchmark Assessee's international transactions under the manufacturing activity but decided to separately benchmark the royalty. Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed as filters to judge the soundness of the international transaction in an ALP fixing exercise. If this were to be disturbed, the end result would be distorted and within one ALP determination for a year, two or even five methods can be adopted. This would spell chaos and be detrimental to the interests of both Assessee and the revenue. 12 Further the Tribunal was totally incorrect in saying that accepting aggregation of royalty payment with other international transactions under the manufacturing segment for the Assessment Year 2006-2007 was in the context of an earlier agreement under which the royalty was paid. But Assessee having entered into a new agreement on 16th September 2010 with Cummins Inc. under which the technical support was received for which payment of royalty was made by Assessee for the year under consideration and hence they need not follow the earlier approach of the Tribunal. This is because the new agreement on which reliance has been placed by the Tribunal was dated 16th September 2010, and even after the said agreement was entered into, for the Assessment Year 2011-2012 to Assessment Year 2014-2015 the TPO himself had accepted the benchmark of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Grounds of appeal Nos. 2, 3, 4 & 5 raised by the assessee are allowed. 14. Ground No.7 has been raised by the assessee against non-granting of exemption u/s. 10AA of the Act at Rs. 196,96,24,249/-. 15. At the outset, learned counsel for the assessee submitted that against the adjustments made by CPC in the order u/s. 143(1)(a) of the Act denying exemption u/s. 10AA of the Act, assessee has got relief from Ld.CIT(A) and Revenue is in appeal against the said adjustment. He further submitted that since the case of the assessee has been selected for scrutiny and final assessment order has been framed u/s.143(3) of the Act, the previous order u/s. 143(1)(a) of the Act gets merged with the final assessment order and Ld.AO while calculating the total assessed income ought to have adopted the income declared in the final return of income prior to making of alleged additions/adjustments. However, Ld.AO has inadvertently adopted the figure of total income calculated by the CPC u/s. 143(1)(a) of the Act, which is not in accordance with law. 16. Ld. DR, on the other hand, supported the order of Ld. CIT(A). 17. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....R on Form No. 3CL and also examine the nature of expenditure claimed by the assessee and if the same is found to be correct, assessee's claim of deduction u/s. 35(2AB) of the Act may be allowed in accordance with law. Ground No.8 raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 22. Ground No.9 raised is against the disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act at Rs. 47,55,629/-. 23. Learned counsel for the assessee, at the outset, submitted that the issue is covered by the decision of this Tribunal in assessee's own case for various A.Ys. 2008-09 to 2016-17. 24. On the other hand, ld. DR supported the order of Ld.AO. 25. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. We observe that during the year under consideration, assessee has earned total exempt income of Rs. 96,04,18,088/-. The assessee has suo-motu disallowed Rs. 48,48,551/- in the computation of income. However, Ld.AO has calculated disallowance @1% of the total exempt income which comes to Rs. 96,04,180/- and after reducing the disallowance, suo-motu offered by the assessee has made the alleged disallowance of Rs. 47,55,629/-. We observe that the year under consideration, the amended ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t of total income. Had Ld.AO applied the formula of Rule 8D(2), the disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act would have been much higher amount. However, Ld.AO in the final assessment order has only made the disallowance u/s. 14A @1% of exempt income which clearly indicates that after properly getting satisfied with the details of calculation of disallowance u/s. 14A filed by the assessee along with the information available in the financial statements had taken a plausible view. Further, we find that reliance placed by the learned counsel for the assessee on the decision of this Tribunal in assessee's own case pertains to the assessment years prior to the amendment brought in by the Income Tax (14 amendment) Rules 2016 effective from 02/06/2016 and, therefore, the same will not be applicable on the facts of the present case. We, therefore, find no infirmity in the disallowance made by the Ld.AO u/s. 14A of the Act at Rs. 47,55,629/-. Ground No.9 raised by the assessee is dismissed. 28. Apropos ground No.10 regarding non-granting of deduction u/s. 80JJAA of the Act, we note that assessee has raised this ground because Ld.AO has adopted the income assessed by the CPC in the return proces....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o short credit of tax deducted at source (TDS)/tax collected at source (TCS) of Rs. 14,59,293/- and short credit of dividend distribution tax (DDT) at Rs. 50,78,82,579/- respectively. Considering the contention of learned counsel for the assessee and also observing that the rectification application filed by the assessee on 13/07/2022 is not yet disposed of, we remit the issues raised in ground Nos. 3 & 4 of additional grounds, to the file of Ld.JAO for necessary verification and made the correct TDS/TCS as well as grant of credit of correct dividend distribution tax eligible to the assessee and decide in accordance with law. Ground Nos. 3 & 4 of additional grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 34. Now, we take up Revenue's appeal ITA No. 1256/PUN/2023. The revised grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue are as follows : "1. On the facts and the circumstances and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in adjudicating that the deduction u/s.10AA is denied by CPC, only on account of the fact that the assessee has failed to file its return of income for the year under consideration within the due date prescribed. 2. On the facts and the circums....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ided in Sr. No.12 in Schedule Part B-TI of the income tax return viz., details of deduction under Chapter VIA, does not pertain to claim of deduction under section 10AA of the ITA. Hence disallowance on account of the said reason as an incorrect claim envisaged u/s 143(1)(a)(ii) is not proper. 2.2.1 In the present case, the eligibility to claim a deduction under section 10AA per se is not being disputed by the AO and the deduction is denied only on account of the fact that the appellant has filed its return of income for the year under consideration after the due date prescribed. Due date for the present Assessment year was 30.11.2018 and the Appellant filed its original return of income on 01 December 2018 after claiming deduction u/s. 10AA of the Act of INR 1,96,96,24,249/-. As mentioned by the appellant above, the return of income could not be filed within 30 November 2018 due to technical glitches and the same was filed on December 1, 2018, i.e. within one day of the statutory timeline. There is no specific provision in section 10AA of the Act which requires filing of the return of income within the due date specified under section 139(1) of the Act to be eligible to c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l vs. ITO (2023) 149 taxmann.com 472 ( Del. ITAT) b) ACIT vs. Vishnu Export in ITA No. 1840/Ahd/2018 c) OPTO Circuits (India) Ltd. vs. Act [2023] 147 taxmann.com 597 (Bang. - Trib.) d) Capgemini Technology Services India Ltd. vs. DCIT in ITA Nos. 1857 & 1935/PUN/2017 e) ACIT vs. Dhir Global Industrial (P.) Ltd. (2011) 43 SOT 640 (Del. - Trib.); and f) Shri Bhagyalaxmi Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. vs. DCIT in ITA No. 01/PAN/2023; and g) Sangam Souharda Credit Sahakari Ltd. vs. DCIT in ITA No. 30/PAN/2023. 38. Learned counsel for the assessee also stated that timely filing of return of income is not a pre-requisite for allowabilty of deduction u/s. 10AA of the Act prior to amendment brought in by Finance Act, 2023 effective from 01/04/2024. He submitted that amendment brought in section 10AA of the Act by the Finance Act, 2023 effective from 01/04/2024 is prospective in nature and through the said amendment, it is provided that no deduction u/s. 10AA of the Act shall be allowed to an assessee, who does not furnish return of income on or before the due date specified u/s. 139(1) of the Act. Learned counsel for the assessee f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he return of income within the due date in order to be allowed a deduction under the said clause section 143(1)(a)(v) of the Act cannot be invoked by the Appellant to deny the deduction u/s. 10AA of the Act for not filing the return of income within the due date u/s. 139(1) of the Act. 7. Thus, it is submitted that a machinery provision i.e. section 143(1) cannot override or add any requirement to the explicit terms of the provision i.e. section 10AA to make a disallowance/adjustment if there is no such explicit requirement in the main provision itself i.e. section 10AA. 8. Reliance in this regard is placed on the following decisions wherein it has been held that machinery provisions cannot override or add to a section any requirement / condition when there are no such requirement in the provision itself: ✓ Decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Fatheraj Singhvi v/s. Union of India reported in [2016] 73 taxmann.com 252 (Karnataka); and ✓ Decision of the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Medical Superintendent Rural Hospital, DOBI BK v/s. DCIT (TDS) reported in [2018] 100 taxmann.com 78 (Pune - Trib.). -....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Finance Bill, 2023 clearly states that the said amendment has been introduced to align the provision of filing return of income to be eligible to claim a deduction u/s. 10AA with the provision of section 143(1) and the same is prospectively applicable from the Assessment Year 2024-25 onwards a copy of the relevant extract of the Memorandum to the Finance Bill, 2023 as reported in the Income Tax Report [ITR] at 451 ITR 269 is enclosed as "Appendix C" refer Page Nos. 55 to 57 of the compilation. 16. It is submitted and it will be appreciated that the amendment by the Finance Act, 2023 and the Memorandum to the Finance Bill, 2023 amply clarify that the condition of filing return of income on or before the due date u/s. 139(1) of the Act for claiming deduction u/s. 10AA is effective prospectively from 1 April 2024 and there was no such condition for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2018-19. 17. Reliance in this regard is placed on the following decisions wherein it has been held that deduction u/s. 10AA cannot be denied for not filing return of income within the due date specified u/s. 139(1) refer to the case law compilation at Page Nos. 41 to 127: &#....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal in case of Symbiosis Pharmaceuticals P. Ltd v/s. the DCIT reported in [2017] 87 taxmann.com 32 (Chandigarh Trib.) Page Nos. 01 to 12 of the CL.C. In view of the foregoing provisions and the legal precedents, since there is no requirement in section 10AA of the Act as it stood for the year under consideration, there is no requirement to file the return of income on/ or before the due date prescribed in section 139(1) of the Act to be eligible to claim a deduction under section 10AA of the Act, and as explained above there is no incorrect claim as per section 143(1)(a) and thus we submit that that the Order of the CIT(A) be upheld and CPC be directed to grant deduction u/s. 10AA of the Act." 39. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. Revenue is aggrieved with the finding of Ld.CIT(A) allowing assessee's claim for deduction u/s. 10AA of the Act at Rs. 196,96,24,249/-. It is not in dispute that deduction has not been denied by the CPC for non-fulfillment of the conditions by the assessee which are required as per the provisions of section 10AA of the Act. The alleged exemption has been disallowed by....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or claiming exemption u/s. 10AA of the Act. Coordinate Bench of Ahmadabad Tribunal in the case of Vishnu Export (supra) has dealt with this issue, and the relevant finding of the Tribunal reads as under:- "10.3 It is the admitted position that the assessee has claimed the exemption under the provisions of section 10AA of the Act wherein there is no mandate to file the return of income within the time specified under section 139(1) of the Act for claiming the deduction unlike the proviso under the provisions of section 10A(IA) of the Act requiring the assessee to file the return of income within the time specified under section 139(1) of the Act for claiming the deduction. Thus, in the absence of any specific provision under the provisions of section 10AA of the Act to file the return of income within the provisions of section 139(1) of the Act, the assessee cannot be deprived of the benefit granted under the statute for the deduction under the provisions of section 10AA of the Act in the given set facts and circumstances. 10.4 The above reasoning is further strengthened by the Finance Bill 2023 wherein it was proposed to file the return of income within the due da....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....serves to be allowed. 44. Now, we take up ground No.3 raised by the Revenue against the finding of Ld.CIT(A) allowing the deduction u/s. 80JJAA of the Act which is claimed by the assessee in respect of employment of new employees. We observe that assessee's claim of deduction u/s. 80JJAA of the Act at Rs. 60,72,090/- has been denied by the CPC for delay in filing return of income. We find that Ld.CIT(A), on observing the fact that assessee has obtained and filed electrically the prescribed report on Form 10AD of the Act required for claiming deduction u/s. 80JJAA of the Act has been filed on 30/11/2018 i.e. within the prescribed time limit and secondly, the delay in filing the return on account of technical issues, has allowed the assessee's claim u/s. 80JJAA of the Act observing as follows:- "3.2 I have carefully considered the facts of the case and submission filed by the appellant. As in the earlier ground, the learned AO denied the deduction u/s 80JJAA for delay in the Hing of original return u/s 143(1). This is with respect to deduction in respect of employment of new employees. The Appellant filed its original return of income for the AY 2018- 2019 on 01 December ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... a) Symboisis Pharmaceuticals P. Ltd. vs. DCIT (2017) 190 TTJ 518 (Chandigarh ITAT) b) Fiberfill Engineers vs. CIT (2016) 177 TTJ 556 (Del. Tribunal) c) Shree Ganesh Concast Group of Industries vs DCIT in ITA No. 829/Chd/2018 d) Hansa Dalakoti vs. ACIT (2012) 50 SOT 511 (Delhi) e) Olavanna Service Co-op. Bank vs. ITO in ITA No. 398/Coch/2014 f) Shri Bhagyalaxmi Co-op. Credit Society Ltd. vs DCIT in ITA No. 01/PAN/2023; and g) Sangam Souharda Credit Sahakari Ltd. vs. DCIT in ITA No. 30/PAN/2023 47. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. We observe that assessee made a claim of deduction u/s. 80JJAA of the Act in respect of employment of new employees. CPC has denied the said claim on account of delay in filing the return. We note that the delay is not intentional and was solely due to technical glitches faced by the assessee while uploading the Income Tax return and the delay was only a few hours. We also observe that assessee in order to claim deduction u/s. 80JJAA of the Act has also to procure a report on Form No. 10DA which contains all the details for calculating the deduction claimed u/....