INSPRIT VISION LLP,PUNE vs. ACIT, CIR-8, PUNE, PUNE

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.2035/PUN/2025 िनधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year : 2024-25 Insprit Vision LLP, Vs. ACIT, Circle-8, Pune. A-3, Abhimanshree Society Pashan Road, Baner, Pune- 411008. PAN : AAGFI8904F Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Neelesh Khandelwal Revenue by : Shri Amol Khairnar Date of hearing 14.05.2026 : Date of pronouncement 23.07.2026 : आदेश / ORDER PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 24.06.2025 passed by Ld. Addl./JCIT(A)-2, Chennai [‘Ld. CIT(A)’] for the assessment year 2024-25. 2. The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1. On facts and circumstances prevailing in the case and as per provisions and scheme of the Act, it be held that the intimation order passed by the AO is without providing an adequate opportunity of being heard and is in violation of principles of natural justice. The order so framed be set aside. Appellant be granted just and proper relief in this respect.

2 ITA No.2035/PUN/2025 2. Without prejudice to ground no. 1 and on facts and circumstances prevailing in the case it be held that the Ld. CIT(A) has passed the order without application of mind and in mechanical manner. The assessment framed by the Ld. AO and confirmed the Ld. First Appellate Authority be set aside. The addition so made be deleted. Just and proper relief be granted to the Appellant in this respect. 3. Without prejudice to ground no. 1 & 2, on facts and circumstances prevailing in the case and as per provisions & scheme of the Act it be held that, the disallowance made by the Ld. AO of Rs. 6,46,77,230/- under section 80IAC of the Act is improper, unjustified and contrary to the provisions and scheme of the Act and facts prevailing in the case. The Appellant be granted just and proper relief in this respect. 4. The Appellant prays to be allowed to add, amend, modify, rectify, delete, raise any grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.” 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a Limited Liability Partnership (LLP). It filed its return of income for the year under consideration on 27.11.2024, which is prior to 15.12.2024 i.e. the extended date of filing return of income, declaring income of Rs.4,030/- after claiming deduction of Rs.6,46,77,233/- u/s 80IAC of the IT Act. The CPC vide order dated 07.02.2025 disallowed the claim u/s 80IAC of the IT Act, since the audit report in Form 10CCB dated 30.10.2024 with respect to claim of deduction u/s 80IAC of the IT Act, which was required to be uploaded/filed on 15.11.2024 i.e. prior to one month from the due date of filing of return of income, was uploaded on

3 ITA No.2035/PUN/2025 02.12.2024 i.e. after the prescribed time limit, resulting in delay of 17 days. 4. Being aggrieved with the above intimation order dated 07.02.2025 passed by CPC u/s 143(1) of the IT Act, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). It was submitted before Ld. CIT(A) that although the audit report in Form No.10CCB was filed belatedly on 02.12.2024, however, the same was filed much before 07.02.2025 when the processing u/s 143(1) of the IT Act was done by CPC. It was requested to allow the deduction u/s 80IAC of the IT Act since it was only a procedural error 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. Not being satisfied with the reply and submissions of the assessee, Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee and upheld the intimation order passed by CPC. 5. It is the above order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.

4 ITA No.2035/PUN/2025 6. We have heard Ld. Counsels from both the sides and perused the material available on record including the paper book as well as copy of case laws furnished by the assessee. In this regard, we find that an identical issue had come up before the coordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of Desai Infra Projects (I) Private Limited vs. CIT in ITA No.1852/PUN/2024 order dated 30.12.2024 wherein the Tribunal allowed the claim of deduction u/s 80IA(4) of the IT Act, since Form 10CCB audit report was furnished prior to processing of return of income by observing as under :- “6. We have heard rival submissions made by both the sides and perused the material available on record. We find the assessee in it’s return of income had claimed deduction of Rs.3,42,22,760/- u/sec.80IA(4)(i) of the Act, which was denied by the CPC in the intimation passed u/sec.143(1) of the Act. We find the Ld. CIT(A) rejected the arguments advanced by the assessee and dismissed the appeal, the reasons of which, have already reproduced in the preceding paragraphs. It is the submission of the Learned Counsel for the Assessee that the CPC does not have any power to deny the claim of deduction u/sec.80IA(4) while processing the return u/sec.143(1). It is also his argument that since the assessee has filed the audit report before the processing of the return and since filing of audit report is directory and not mandatory, therefore, the deduction should not have been denied. 6.1. We find some force in the above arguments of the Learned Counsel for the Assessee. Admittedly, in the instant case, the assessee has filed audit report in Form-10CCB on 31.10.2022 and the CPC has processed the return of income on 16.03.2023. It is also an admitted fact that as per the intimation u/sec.143(1), the extended due date for filing of the return for the assessment year 2022-2023 is 07.11.2022.

5 ITA No.2035/PUN/2025 6.2. We find an identical issue had come-up before the Chennai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Natesan Precision Components Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT in ITA.No.1397/Chny/2024, order dated 09.08.2024 for the assessment year 2018-2019, wherein it has been held that a claim of deduction u/sec.80IA(4) cannot be denied merely because the audit report in Form-10CCB was filed belatedly i.e., not along with the return of income. The relevant observations of the Tribunal are as under : “8. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. We find that this was the 8th year of claiming deduction u/s.80IA of the Act and in earlier year assessee was granted such deduction; and in the relevant AY, the CPC denied the deduction only on the ground that Audit Report/ Form No.10CCB was belatedly e-filed i.e, not along with the return of income. On appeal, the Ld.CIT(A) has confirmed the action of the CPC by holding that the assessee ought to have filed Form No.10CCB on the due date, which requirement of law, we note came w.e.f. 01.04.2020 and is not applicable for AY 2017-18. Having said so, we note that the assessee had e-filed Form No.10CCB before the CPC had processed the return of income u/s 143(1) of the Act; and therefore, the deduction claimed ought to have been allowed as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of GM Knitting Industries (P.) Ltd., (supra), wherein the Apex Court had an occasion to examine the action of Bombay High Court holding that if Form 3AA is filed before the assessment proceedings culminated, then additional depreciation shall be allowed and such a claim should not be denied only because assessee did not furnish Form 3AA along with return of income. And the Hon’ble Apex Court, affirmed the action of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay as well as tagged along matter wherein Revenue challenged the action of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in AKS Alloys Pvt. Ltd (supra) and the Civil Appeal of department was dismissed, which means the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court has been affirmed by Hon’ble Supreme Court, and is binding precedent that if assessee had filed the Form 10CCB before the assessment proceedings culminate, then the deduction claimed u/s.80IB ought not to be denied on the reason that assessee did not file Form 10CCB along with Return of Income (RoI). We also note the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in M/s.Wipro Ltd. (supra) was in the context of that assessee’s [Wipro] claim of exemption under Chapter III, in contra-distinction to the claim raised by the present assessee under Chapter VI-A. And it would be gainful

6 ITA No.2035/PUN/2025 to reproduce the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s observation in M/s.Wipro Ltd., wherein in the distinction in the claim made for exemption under Chapter-III and deduction claimed under Chapter VI was noted as under : “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 10B (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 "incomes 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 made in computing total income". Therefore, none of the decisions which are relied upon on behalf of the assessee on interpretation of Chapter VIA shall be applicable while considering the claim under Section 10B (8) of the IT Act.[emphasis given by us]” 9. In the light of the discussion, and taking note that assessee had e-filed the audit report in Form 10CCB on 30.03.2019 and processing by CPC u/s.143(1) of the Act took place only on 12.01.2020, which is an event much after the assessee had e-filed the Form 10CCB, therefore, the claim of deduction ought to have been granted especially when assessee was granted such a deduction for the earlier 5 years. Therefore, we set-aside the impugned order of Ld.CIT(A)/JCIT(A) and direct the AO to allow the claim of deduction u/s.80IA of the Act. 10. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.” 6.3. We find the Kolkata Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Tarasafe International (P.) Ltd., vs. DDIT, CPC (supra) after considering the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs. Wipro Ltd., (supra), has held that when the audit report is filed before the final order of assessment, the assessee was entitled to claim deduction under section 80JJAA. The relevant observations of

7 ITA No.2035/PUN/2025 the Kolkata Bench of the Tribunal from para-2 onwards read as under : “2. The short issue involved in this appeal is as to whether the late filing of audit report in Form 10DA would disentitle the assessee from claiming deduction u/s.80JJAA of the Act, when the said Form 100A was available to the Ld. AO at the time of assessment proceedings. The assessee in this case filed the Form 100A on 27.10.2023 as against the due date of 30.09.2023 but, the same was available to the AO at the time of processing the return of income as the notice u/s. 143(1)(a) of the Act was issued by the CPC to the assessee on 23.11.2023. 3. The issue is squarely covered by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT V. G. M Knitting bahotries (P) Ltd. (2016/12 SCC 272/[2016] 71 taxmann.com 35/376 ITR 456 (SC), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that, even though it is necessary to file certificate in Form 10CCB along with the return of income, but even if the same has not been filed with the return of income, but the same was filed before the final order of assessment was made, the assessee was entitled to claim deduction u/s. 80-IB of the Act. 4. So far as the reliance of the Id. DR on the another decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Wipro Lid 120221 140 taxmann.com 223/288 Tasman 491/446 ITR I (SC) is concerned, it is to be observed that the said case is relating to the claim of exemption u's. 10B falling under Chapter III of the I.T. Act. However, the claim of the assessee in the case in hand is u/s. 80JJAA of the Act under Chapter VIA of the Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 11 of the judgment in the case of Wipro Lid (supra) has clarified the position that the exemption provisions are to be strictly adhered to whereas the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 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

8 ITA No.2035/PUN/2025 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 the decisions which are relied upon on behalf of the assessee on interpretation of Chapter VIA shall be applicable while considering the claim under section 10B(8) of the I.T. Act." In view of this, the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of G. M. Knitting Industries Pvt. Ltd. (supra) the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) is, therefore, set aside and the AO is directed to grant deduction to the assessee u/s. 80JJAA of the Act as claimed. The appeal of the assessee stands allowed. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed.” 6.4. Since the assessee in the instant case has admittedly filed the audit report in Form-10CCB prior to the processing of the return, therefore, respectfully following the decisions cited (supra), we are of the considered opinion that assessee cannot be denied deduction u/sec.80IA(4) of the Act. Accordingly, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is reversed and the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed. 7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.” 7. Respectfully following the above decision passed in the case of Desai Infra Projects (I) Private Limited (supra) involving identical issue, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee cannot be denied deduction u/s 80IAC of the IT Act, since in its case also admittedly the audit report in Form 10CCB was filed

9 ITA No.2035/PUN/2025 prior to processing of the return by the CPC. Accordingly, we deem it appropriate to set-aside the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer/CPC to allow the deduction u/s 80IAC of the IT Act as claimed by the assessee. Thus, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced on this 23rd day of July, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- (R. K. PANDA) (VINAY BHAMORE) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे / Pune; �दनांक / Dated : 23rd July, 2026. Sujeet/DOC Sujeet Kumar Digitally signed by Sujeet Kumar Sharma Sharma Date: 2026.07.24 10:47:29 आदेश क� �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : +05'30' अपीलाथ� / The Appellant. 1. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 2. 3. The Addl./JCIT(A)-2, Chennai. 4. The Pr. CIT/CIT concerned. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “A” ब�च, 5. पुणे / DR, ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune. गाड� फ़ाइल / Guard File. 6. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Assistant Registrar आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.