COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. AXIX COMPUTERS INDIA P.LTD.
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that the provisions of Section 10A(5) are directory and not mandatory. The benefit of Section 10A can be availed as long as the audit report is filed before the assessment is framed.
What were the facts?
The Revenue appealed against the ITAT's decision regarding the interpretation of Section 10A(5) of the Income Tax Act. The core issue was whether filing the audit report along with the return was mandatory for claiming the benefit under Section 10A.
What were the issues?
Whether the filing of the audit report along with the return of income is mandatory for claiming deductions under Section 10A, or if it is directory.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 10A(5)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
* THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on 12.12.2008
+ ITA 1262/2007
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI – I
… Appellant
- versus –
AXIS COMPUTERS (INDIA) PVT. LTD ... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Appellant : Ms Prem Lata Bansal with Mr Sanjeev Rajpal, Mr M P Gupta and Ms Anshul Sharma For the Respondent : Mr B. Gupta & Mr R K Chaufla
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HON’BLE MR JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest ? BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL) 1. In the present appeal the appellant seeks to raise the question of interpretation with regard to the provisions of Section 10A (5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘said Act’). The said provision is virtually identical to the provisions of Section 80IA
(7) as also 80HHB (3) (ia). It is also identical to the erstwhile 2008:DHC:3324-DB
This Court has already interpreted the latter provisions and has held the same to be directory and not mandatory. The contention of the revenue was that unless and until the audit report is filed along with the return, the benefit of Section 10A cannot be available to the assessee. Recently, we have considered the identical provisions of Section 80IA (7) in the case of CIT v. Contimeters Electricals Private Limited: ITA 1366/2008 decided on 02.12.2008 and held that as long as the audit report is filed before the framing of the assessment, the provisions of Section 80IA (7) would be complied with inasmuch as the same are directory and not mandatory. A similar view would have to be taken in the present case also inasmuch as the provisions are the same. Consequently, we do not find any fault with the conclusions arrived at by the Tribunal. No substantial question of law arises for our consideration. The appeal is dismissed.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J December 12, 2008 SR
2008:DHC:3324-DB
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Manoj Kumar Das vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S Superwealth Financial Enterprises Private Limited, Khordha vs. Joint Commissioner Good And Service Tax Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Simanchal Sahoo vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Prafulla Chandra Khatua, Mayurbhanj vs. The State Tax Officer Of CT And GST, MayurbhanjOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S.Sidhivinayak Roadways, Sundergarh vs. Commissioner Of GST And Central Excise, Rourkela Commissionerate, RourkelaOrissa · 15 Oct 2026