STEELMINT INDUSTRIES PVT LTD,HISAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE , HISAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2535/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 May 2026AY 2024-253 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that since the benefit of Section 115BAB was allowed in the preceding assessment year where the assessee earned revenue, there was no reason to deny it in the current year if the assessee remained eligible.

What were the facts?

The assessee, engaged in steel manufacturing, opted for taxation under Section 115BAB. While the CIT(A) allowed this benefit for AY 2023-24, the CPC disallowed it for the impugned assessment year, citing a previous year's assessment order.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee is eligible for the concessional tax rate under Section 115BAB when the benefit was allowed in a prior year, despite a contrary view taken in an earlier assessment year where no revenue was generated.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 115BAB,Section 139(1),Section 143(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “SMC”, DELHI

Hearing: 19/05/2026Pronounced: 19/05/2026

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण धिल्ली पीठ “एस एम सी”, धिल्ली श्री धिकास अिस्थी, न्याधयक सिस्य IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC”, DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आअसं.2535/धिल्ली/2026 (धि.ि. 2024-25) ITA No.2535/DEL/2026 (A.Y.2024-25)

Steelmint Industries P. Ltd., VPO Talwandi Rukka, Hisar, Haryana 125001 ...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant PAN: ABECS1285K बिाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, ..... प्रधििािी/Respondent Circle, Hisar, Haryana अपीलार्थी द्वारा/Appellant by : S/Shir Saubhagya Aggarwal & V Rajakumar, Advocates प्रधििािीद्वारा/Respondent by : Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR सुििाई की धिधर्थ/Date of hearing : 19/05/2026 घोषणा की धिधर्थ/Date of pronouncement : 19/05/2026 आिेश/ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM:

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Hyderabad [in short ‘the CIT(A)’] dated 13.02.2026, for Assessment Year 2024-25.

2.

Shri Saubhagya Aggarwal, appearing on behalf of the assessee submits that the assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing of steel. The assessee started manufacturing in FY 2021-22, relevant to Assessment Year 2022-23. The first year in which the assessee generated revenue was A.Y. 2023-24. The assessee while filing return of Income for AY 2023-24 had also furnished Audit Report in Form 10ID within the due date u/s 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), wherein the assessee had opted for taxation u/s 115BAB of the Act. The same was not accepted by the CPC in proceedings u/s 143(1) of the

2 ITA No. 2535/DEL/2026 (A.Y.2024-25) Act. The assessee carried the issue in appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A), vide order dated 19.02.2025, accepted the assessee’s contention and allowed the benefit of lower tax rate @15% u/s 115BAB of the Act. Again, in the impugned assessment year, the CPC disallowed assessee’s claim of lower tax rate @15% u/s 115BAB of the Act. The assessee carried the issue in appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) without considering findings of the CIT(A) in the immediately preceding assessment year referred to assessment order for assessment year 2021-22 to contend that the assessee had not opted for taxation u/s 115BAB of the Act. The ld. Counsel submits that in A.Y. 2021-22, production had not started and there was no tax implication. Therefore, the assessee did not prefer appeal against the assessment order for A.Y. 2021-22. The assessee had opted for taxation u/s 115BAB of the Act, the assessee was found eligible by the CIT(A), hence, the same was allowed in the preceding assessment year. He thus prayed for reversing findings of the CIT(A) and granting benefit of section 115BAB of the Act.

3.

Per contra, Shri Manoj Kumar representing the Department vehemently defending the impugned order prayed for dismissing appeal of the assessee.

4.

Both sides heard, orders of the authorities below examined. Perusal of the CIT(A) order for A.Y. 2023-24 dated 19.02.2025 reveals that the benefit of section 115BAB of the Act was allowed to the assessee. A.Y. 2023-24 was the first assessment year wherein the assessee earned revenue from manufacturing operations and the benefit of section 115BAB of the Act was allowed as the assessee was found eligible for the same. I see no reason in the impugned assessment year to deny benefit u/s 115BAB of the Act to the assessee, if the assessee is eligible for same.

3 ITA No. 2535/DEL/2026 (A.Y.2024-25) 5. In light of the above findings, the impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on Tuesday the 19th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (VIKAS AWASTHY) न्याधयक सिस्य/JUDICIAL MEMBER धिल्ली/Delhi, धििांक/Dated 25/05/2026

NV/- प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलार्थी/The Appellant , 1. प्रधििािी/ The Respondent. 2. 3. The PCIT/CIT(A) धिभागीय प्रधिधिधि, आय.अपी.अधि., दिल्ली /DR, ITAT, धिल्ली 4. गार्ड फाइल/Guard file. 5.

BY ORDER, //True Copy//

(Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, DELHI

More judgments on Section 115BAB

All 46 judgments and leading authorities on Section 115BAB →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →