ERADICATUS INFECTUS PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI

ITA 3934/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 February 2026AY 2023-24Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that while filing Form 10CCB is a requirement, it is directory in nature. Given the assessee is a recognized startup and eligible for the deduction, the non-filing of the form due to its unsuitability for Section 80IAC claims should not lead to denial.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a recognized startup, claimed a deduction under Section 80IAC for AY 2023-24. The CPC disallowed this deduction because Form 10CCB was not filed, citing it as a requirement under Section 80IA(7).

What were the issues?

Whether the disallowance of Section 80IAC deduction is justified solely due to the non-filing of Form 10CCB, especially when the form is not designed to accommodate such claims?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80IAC,Section 80IA(7),Section 143(1)(a)(ii)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)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 BENCHES ‘I’: NEW DELHI.

Before: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN & SHRI VIMAL KUMAR

For Appellant: CA Vkas Singh & CA V.K. Jain
Hearing: 26.11.2025

PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :

1.

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ADDL/JCIT(A)-1, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to ‘ld. CIT (A)’) dated 19.09.2024 for Assessment Year 2023-24. 2. At the time of filing of appeal, the Registry has pointed out a defect that appeal is time barred by 198 days.

3.

We have heard both the counsels on the issue of condonation of delay. In our considered opinion, there was a reasonable cause for the delay in 2 filing the appeal. Therefore, we condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal.

4.

Brief facts of the case are, asses

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 80IA(7)

All 38 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80IA(7) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →