TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (2) TMI 764
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eyond the due date for filing of return u/s 139(1) of the Act. The assessee filed a rectification application dated 06.06.2020 with the CPC which was rejected vide order dated 12.07.2020. The assessee filed another rectification application dated 19.04.2021 which was also rejected by the CPC vide order dated 10.05.2021. 3. Before the Ld. Addl / JCIT(A) it was submitted that although the audit report in Form No.10CCB was filed on 11.12.2019, however, the same was filed much before processing was done u/s 143(1) of the Act and therefore, it was validly filed. It was submitted that filing of Form is a procedural provision and therefore, the rigors of substantive provisions are not applicable. Relying on various decisions it was argued that where Form No.10CCB was filed before completion of the assessment, the same is to be considered as in compliance to the requirement of the Act. 4. However, the Ld. Addl / JCIT(A) was not satisfied with the arguments of the assessee and upheld the action of the CPC on the ground that since the assessee claimed deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act, therefore it is required to obtain and file the audit report in Form No.10CCB one month prior to the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... return, therefore, the assessee cannot be denied deduction u/s 80IA(4) of the Act. He accordingly submitted that since the assessee in the instant case has filed the audit report in Form No.10CCB on 11.12.2019 which is before the return was processed u/s 143(1a) and 143(1) of the Act, therefore, disallowance cannot be denied to the assessee. 9. The Ld. DR on the other hand heavily relied on the order of the Ld. Addl / JCIT(A). 10. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and the Ld. Addl / JCIT(A) and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered the various decisions cited before us. We find the CPC in its communication u/s 143(1a) dated 12.12.2019 and intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act dated 29.05.2020 disallowed the claim of deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act on the ground that Form No.10CCB was not filed along with the return or was filed beyond the due date for filing of return u/s 139(1) of the Act where the due date was 31.10.2019. We find the Ld. Addl / JCIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee on the ground that the assessee filed its ITR on 18.10.2019. Since the assessee cl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and the judgement passed by Hon'ble High Court of Orissa in the case of Disc overture Solutions (India) (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT (2023) 147 taxmann.com 262 (Orissa) are related to exemption and not deductions hence not applicable to the facts of the instant case. The judgement passed by Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Rohan Korgaonkar vs. DCIT (2024) 159 taxmann.com 321 (Bombay) and the decision passed by coordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of New Balance IT Services India P. Ltd. in ITA No.245 & 246/PUN/2024 order dated 05.06.2024 are also relied on by Ld. DR, however in both the above cases the facts are different hence not applicable to the facts of the instant case in hand. We further find that Ld. DR also relied on the decision passed by a coordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of Pradeep Kumar Batra vs. DCIT in ITA No.6384/DEL/2019 order dated 23.10.2020. On the other hand, Ld. AR relied on the latest decision passed by jurisdictional coordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of Desai Infra Projects (I) Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT in ITA No.1852/PUN/2024 order dated 30.12.2024 wherein under similar circumstances the Tribunal has allowed the appeal of the ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... G. M. Knitting Industries Pvt. Ltd. (supra) is relating to deduction provisions u/s. VA of the Act the relevant para 11 of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Wipro Lad. (supra) is reproduced below : "11. Now so far as the reliance placed upon the decision of this court in the case of G. M. Knitting Industries Pvt. Ltd. (supra), relied upon by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee is concerned, section 108(8) is an exemption provision which cannot be compared with claiming an additional depreciation under section 32(1)(ii-a) of the Act. As per the settled position of law, an assessee claiming exemption has to strictly and literally comply with the exemption provisions. Therefore, the said decision shall not be applicable to the facts of the case on hand, while considering the exemption provisions. Even otherwise, Chapter III and Chapter VIA of the Act operate in different realms and principles of Chapter III, which deals with "income which do not Form a part of total income", cannot be equated with mechanism provided for deductions in Chapter VIA, which deals with "deductions to be made in computing total income". Therefore, none of....