KUNSTOCOM (INDIA) LIMITED,DEFENCE COLONY vs. ACIT/DCIT, DELHI

ITA 3126/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 September 2026AY 2024-258 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the adjustment made by the CPC under Section 143(1) was beyond its scope as it involved an interpretation of law regarding the applicability of Section 115BAA. The Tribunal found that the assessee had not fulfilled the conditions of Section 115BAA(2) by claiming additional depreciation, thus invalidating the option.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed additional depreciation under Section 32(1)(iia) while filing its return. The CPC processed the return under Section 143(1), disallowing the claim on the grounds that the assessee had opted for the concessional tax regime under Section 115BAA, which prohibits such claims.

What were the issues?

Whether the disallowance of additional depreciation under Section 143(1) was valid when the assessee claimed it despite filing Form 10-IC for Section 115BAA, and whether such an adjustment is permissible under Section 143(1).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 32(1)(iia),Section 115BAA,Section 143(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘G’, NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA

For Appellant: Shri Alok Mittal, C.A
For Respondent: Shri Bhogendra Prasad, Sr. D.R
Hearing: 19.08.2026Pronounced: 09.09.2026

PER NAVEEN CHANDRA [ACCOUNTANT MEMBER]:

The above-captioned appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order dated 25.09.2025, passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeals, Addl/JCIT(A)-2, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. CIT(A)’) under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), arising out of the intimation dated 16.05.2025 issued under section 143(1) of the Act by CPC, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Assessing Officer’ or simply the ‘AO’) for A.Y 2024-25. ITA No.3126/Del/2026 [for A.Y 2024-25] Kunstocom (India) Ltd. vs. ACIT/DCIT

2.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed its Income Tax Return (ITR) for th

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 32(1)(iia)

All 553 judgments and leading authorities on Section 32(1)(iia) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →