TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 264
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Y) 2021-22. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under: "1. Order of the CIT(A) is contrary to law of facts and circumstances of the case. 2.1. CIT(A) erred in not allowing the claim of Rs. 14,06,904/- under Section 80JJAA, pertaining to the 3rd year's claim of AY 19-20, for which Form 10DA was filed during AY 19-20. 2.2. CIT(A) erred in not considering the details of additional number of employees during the first year i.e. AY 19-20 and the amount of emoluments paid to the additional employees entitled for deduction u/s. 80JJAA which was clearly mentioned in the Form 10DA and there is no mismatch between the amount of claim allowable as deduction as stated by CIT(A). 2.3. Form 10DA was....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al adjustment. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that the trade receivable is a result of normal sale transactions in regular course of business. 3.2 CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the credit offered for payment for the specified AEs were based on trade practise and in consideration of the time taken for the products to be sold by the AE 3.3 CIT(A) ought to have considered the different conditions regarding time taken for delivery of goods and the time taken for the AE to sell the products in the region. Period for working capital adjustment, if any, should be considered only from the date of sale by the AE, in as much as the AE is a subsidiary of the Appellant and the AE does not have the benefit of the fun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of computing interest without any benchmarking or rationale or basis for the same. 3.10 CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that Appellant company being debt free company (substantiated with relevant extract from financials) the question of receiving any interest on receivables did not arise. [PCIT Vs Inductis India Pvt Ltd (Delhi High Court)] 4.1 The NeFAC draft/ final assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) is time barred as it is passed after the due date for completion of assessment for AY 21-22 which is 9 months from end of AY plus additional 12 months since reference was made to TPO. The due date of completion of assessment is 31.12.2023 and the final assessment order is passed post the due date on 15.01.2024. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sum was erroneously disallowed for non furnishing of Form 10DA. The appellant submitted that the amount of Rs. 14,06,904/- claimed u/s. 80JJAA pertains to the 3rd years claim for which Form 10DA has been filed in AY 2019-20. A perusal of Form 10DA dated 26-11-2019 shows that in respect of AY 2019-20, a sum of Rs. 3,23,97,209/- was determined to be the additional employee cost incurred by the appellant. Even as per Form 3DA for AY 2019-20, the additional number of employees during the first year or the amount of emoluments paid to additional employees entitled for deduction u/s. 80JJAA have not been mentioned. There is also mismatch between the claim of allowable deduction for the concerned year and no such specific details have been submitt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me. 5. We have heard the parties, and perused the material available on record. We notice that the sole reason for denial of deduction under section 80JJAA is that the assessee had not furnished Form No. 10DA along with the return of income. During the course of proceedings before us, the assessee has filed Form No. 10DA as additional evidence and the same is admitted for a proper adjudication of the issue and for substantial cause. In the present case the ld DR did not disputed that the impugned assessment year represents the third year of the deduction claimed under section 80JJAA in respect of the very same additional employee cost which had originated in the initial year and on the basis of which the deduction had been claimed in the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....7. Given that Form No. 10DA has now been furnished before us and requires factual verification, we admit the same as additional evidence in the interest of substantial justice. We, therefore, restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for the limited purpose of verifying the particulars contained in Form No. 10DA and satisfying himself that the deduction claimed pertains to the same eligible additional employee cost in respect of which the deduction had been allowed/claimed in the earlier two years and that no other statutory condition remains unfulfilled. Subject to such verification, the Assessing Officer is directed to allow the deduction under section 80JJAA in accordance with law. Needless to say that the assessee be given....