ANALAB SCIENTIFIC INSTRUMENTS PVT. LTD.,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2482/AHD/2025Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 April 2026AY 2022-234 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the claim of the assessee regarding not claiming additional depreciation needed verification. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for proper verification.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a private limited company, filed its return of income calculating tax at 25.168% under Section 115BAA. However, the CPC processed the return under Section 143(1) and raised a demand by calculating tax at 31.20%. Multiple rectification applications filed by the assessee were rejected.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the correct tax rate applicable to the assessee under Section 115BAA, specifically whether the assessee had claimed additional depreciation which would affect the tax rate.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 115BAA,Section 143(1),Section 154

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Hemant Suthar, A.R
For Respondent: Shri Rameshwar P Meena, Sr. D.R

आदेश/ORDER This is an appeal filed against the order dated 17-11- 2025 passed by CIT(A)/Addl/JCIT(A), Mysore for assessment year 2022-23

2.

The grounds of appeal are as under:- “1. The Ld. Addl. / JCIT(A), Mysore has erred in law and in facts in confirming the action of the CPC in calculating tax on total income @ 31.20% instead of calculating the same @ 25.168% u/s 115BAA. This being bad in law and in facts, it is prayed to direct the CPC to rectify the mistake and re-determine the tax applying the rate of 25.168% considering the provisions of Sec. 115BAA of the Act. 2. Your appellant craves liberty to add, alter, amend substitute or withdraw any of the grounds of appeal hereinabove contained.”

The assessee is a private limited company incorporated 3. in India. The assessee has filed its return of income on 29.09.2022 u/s 139(1), wherein gross total income was declared of Rs. 49,85,810/- calculating tax thereon at Rs. 12,54,829/- @ 22 percentage u/s 115BAA. (Average rate of tax along with surcharge and cess to 25.168 percentage). The said return was processed u/s 143(1) on 21.02.2023, wherein a demand of Rs. 2,91,310/- was raised. While processing the intimation under section 143(1) of the Act, CPC has calculated tax on the income at the rate of 30 percentage (Average rate of tax along with surcharge and cess to 31.20 percentage) instead of 22 percentage u/s 115BAA as calculated by the assessee. Above being mistake apparent from records, the assessee had filed a rectification application on 22.02.2023 on income tax portal for calculating tax on the income @ 22 percentage. The said rectification application was processed on 24.02.2023 and an order u/s 154 was passed calculating tax on total income at the rate of 30 percentage. The assessee again filed a rectification application on 18.03.2023 & 17.04.2023 on income tax portal for calculating tax on the income @ 22 percentage u/s 115BAA. The said rectification applications were processed on 30.03.2023 & 03.05.2023 and an order u/s 154 was passed calculating tax on total income at the rate of 30 percentage.

4.

Aggrieved by the order u/s. 154 of the Act dated 03-05- 2023, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 2

5.

The ld. A.R. submitted that the Assessing Officer was not right in calculating tax and the total income at 31.20% instead of calculating same at Rs. 25.168 u/s. 115BBA. In fact, the assessee has categorically mentioned in rectification application processed on 24-03-2023 that the assessee has not claimed additional depreciation.

6.

The ld. D.R. submitted that the return was not properly set out the fact that additional depreciation was not claimed. Therefore, ld. D.R. requested that the matter may be remanded back to the file of the Assessing Officer for proper verification.

7.

I have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. From the perusal of page no. 31 of rectification order, it appears that the assessee has not claimed additional depreciation and thus fact needs to be verified. Therefore, the matter is remanded back to the file of the Assessing Officer for proper verification of the same accordingly and if it is found that the assessee has not claimed it, then the rate 25.168% of the Tax be applied. Needless to say, the assessee be given opportunity of hearing by following principles of natural justice.

8.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the open court on 16-04-2026

Sd/- (Suchitra Kamble) Judicial Member

Ahmedabad : Dated 16/04/2026 3 a.k. आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. Concerned CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. Guard file. By order/आदेश से,

उप/सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, अहमदाबाद

More judgments on Section 115BAA

All 225 judgments and leading authorities on Section 115BAA →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →