TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 825
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ct, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') relating to the Assessment Year 2024-25. 2. Brief facts of the case is that the assessee is a company filed its return of income for the assessment year 2024-25 belatedly on 28.12.2024 admitting total income of Rs. 4,26,53,030/- under New Tax Regime. The return was processed by CPC under the old tax regime which resulted in a tax demand of Rs. 1,30,48,940/-. Aggrieved against the intimation, the assessee filed appeal before Addl./Joint CIT(A), who has confirmed the disallowance on the ground that the assessee opted for new tax regime under section 115BAA of the Act and filed Form No. 10-IC on 28.12.2024. Since both the return of income and Form No. 10IC have been filed belatedly, the Addl./....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....red the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. Section 115BBA of the Act was introduced for the purpose of granting benefit of reduced corporate tax rate for the domestic companies. In order to avail the benefit, such companies are required to exercise the option in prescribed manner on or before due date specified under section 139(1) for furnishing the return of income. As per the rule 21AE of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, such option can be exercised by filing Form 10-IC. Sub-section (5) of Section 115BAA of the Act, makes it mandatory to file this form on or before the due date of furnishing the return of income as specified u/s 139(1) of the Act. In present case, the assessee has filed this form belated i.e. on 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng observations: "6.3 Another notable issue for consideration is that recently the Hon`ble Supreme Court was confronted with the claim of benefit u/s 10B in Pr. CIT v. Wipro Ltd. [2022] 140 taxmann.com 223/288 Taxman 491/446 ITR 1. The assessee furnished the original return taking the benefit of section 10B and did not carry forward the loss. Thereafter, a revised return was filed foregoing the claim of deduction u/s 10B. The AO rejected the withdrawal of exemption under section 10B by holding that assessee did not furnish the necessary declaration in writing before due date of filing return of income, which was an essential requirement for not claiming the benefit of section 10B. The Hon`ble High Court decided the issue in favour ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... claimed benefit of carry forward of losses. It was in light of these facts that the Hon`ble Supreme Court held that on a plain reading of section 10B(8) of the Act, it is clear that where assessee claimed benefit under section 10B(8) by furnishing declaration in revised return much after due date prescribed under section 139(1), same was to be denied as requirement of furnishing declaration before AO before due date of filing original return under section 139(1) was a mandatory condition not directory. However, notably, there is no such equivalent/similar provision in section 10AA of the Act, which gives an option to the assessee to file a declaration before the due date of return of income under section 139(1) of the Act, to the effect th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...."Exemption" or Deduction" provisions. Therefore, since it is well-settled principle of law that deduction provisions, which have been introduced in the Statute to provide incentive to the assessee, should be construed "liberally", in our considered view, once it is not disputed that the instant set of facts, the assessee claimed the benefit of provisions under section 10AA in the return of income (which in our view is a mandatory/directory requirement), the benefit of section 10AA cannot be denied only on the ground that the assessee could not file Form 56F along with the return of income (being a procedural requirement), especially when Form 56F has been filed by the assessee at the assessment stage when such claim was being considered by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ive to the assessee." 8.1 The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Zenith Processing Mills v. CIT [1996] 219 ITR 721 held that provision of section 80J(6A) of the Act to extent it requires furnishing of auditor`s report in prescribed form along with return, is directory in nature and not mandatory. Further, it was held that the assessee can be permitted to produce such a report at later stage when question of disallowance arises during course of assessment proceedings. In the instant case, the Ld.A.O. as well as the Ld.CIT(A) has denied benefit of concessional tax rate u/s 115BAA of the Act on account of an inadvertent error on the part of the assessee in not e-filing Form 10IC before due date prescribed. We are, therefore....