SUPERTECH EV LIMITED,JHAJJAR vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD, ROHTAK

ITA 6603/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 March 2026AY 2024-25Bench: SH. S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. SUDHIR KUMAR (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the filing of Form 10-IC is directory, not mandatory, and the assessee's intention to opt for the concessional regime was clear from the return and tax audit report. Procedural lapses should not deny substantive benefits.

What were the facts?

The assessee intended to opt for the concessional tax regime under Section 115BAA but due to a technical glitch, Form 10-IC was not uploaded correctly with the return. The CPC processed the return under normal provisions, and a rectification request was rejected. The CIT(A) also dismissed the appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee is eligible for the concessional tax rate under Section 115BAA despite a procedural lapse in filing Form 10-IC and whether the timing of filing such forms is mandatory or directory.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 115BAA,Section 143(1),Section 154,Section 234B,Section 234C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(5)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

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

Before: SH. S. RIFAUR RAHMAN & SH. SUDHIR KUMAR

For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR
Hearing: 24/02/2026Pronounced: 11/03/2026

PER SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/ Addl/JCIT(A)-9 Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as “Ld.CIT(A)”] vide order dated 26-09-2025 pertaining to A.Y. 2024-25 arising out the assessment order dated 27-06-2025 under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act,1961, (in short ‘the Act’).

2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds in appeal:

1.

That under the facts and circumstances, the limitation passed is erroneous and bad in law.

2.

That under the facts and circumstances of the case both the lower authorities erred in law as well as on merit in not allowing concessional rate of tax

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 115BAA

All 225 judgments and leading authorities on Section 115BAA →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →