M/S GRAVISS FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CIRCLE 7(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

ITA 3597/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 July 2025AY 2023-24Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON'BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER Ι.Τ.Α. No. 3597/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2023-24 M/s. Graviss Foods Private Limited Strand Cinema, C.S. No. 506 Arthur Bunder Road Colaba Mumbai - 400005 [PAN: AABCM6895P] अपीलार्थी/ (Appellant) Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle – 7(1)(1), Mumbai प्रत्यर्थी / (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Mahesh O. Rajora, C.A. Revenue by : Shri Swapnil Choudhary, Sr. D/R सुनवाई की तारीख/Da1 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

Although the AO initially denied the deduction for delay in filing Form 10DA, the AO subsequently allowed the claim during scrutiny assessment proceedings, rendering the appeal infructuous.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed its return of income belatedly and also filed Form 10DA, required for claiming deduction under Section 80JJAA, after the due date. The AO initially denied the deduction on this ground, which was confirmed by the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing Form 10DA is a procedural defect that should not deny the benefit of Section 80JJAA deduction, especially when subsequently allowed by AO.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80JJAA,Section 44AB,Section 143(3),Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “G” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON’BLE & SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, HON’BLE

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh O. Rajora, C.A
Hearing: 23/07/2025Pronounced: 31/07/2025

PER NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, AM: This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)/Addl./JCIT (A) – 4, Delhi [hereinafter ‘the ld. CIT(A)’] dated 25/03/2025 pertaining to AY 2023-24. 2. The grievance of the assessee reads as under:- “1. The Additional/ Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 4, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as CIT(A)] erred in confirming the action of Deputy Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as the AO) in

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 80JJAA

All 275 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80JJAA →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →