COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. WEB COMMERCE (INDIA) P.LTD.
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that the provisions of Section 10B(5) are directory and not mandatory. The audit report, if filed before the framing of the assessment, would comply with the provisions.
What were the facts?
The Revenue appealed against the ITAT's decision regarding the interpretation of Section 10B(5) of the Income Tax Act. The Revenue contended that the benefit of Section 10A could not be availed if the audit report was not filed with the return.
What were the issues?
Whether the filing of an audit report along with the return is mandatory for claiming benefits under Section 10B(5), or if it is directory and can be filed later.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 10B(5),Section 80IA(7),Section 80HHB(3)(ia),Section 80J(6A),Section 10A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
ITA No. 552/2008
Page No.1 of 2 * THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on 12.12.2008
+ ITA 552/2008
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI – VI
… Appellant
- versus –
WEB COMMERCE (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 K. R. Manjani
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 10B (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 provisions of Section 80J(6A) of the said Act.
ITA No. 552/2008
Page No.2 of 2
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
More judgments on Section 80IA(7)
- Cicago Commodities Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs ACIT, Circle 1(1), KolkataITA 994/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: Heard1 Sept 2026AY 2018-2019
- DCIT, Delhi vs Noida Toll Bridge Company Limited, DelhiITA 6174/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed13 Mar 2026AY 2014-15
- Eradicatus Infectus Private Limited, New… vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, New DelhiITA 3934/DEL/2025[2023-24]Status: Disposed6 Feb 2026AY 2023-24
- Pristine Mega Logistics Park Pvt. Ltd… vs DCIT Circle- 19(1), New DelhiITA 1450/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: Disposed17 Dec 2025AY 2022-23
- Fivd India Consulting Pvt Ltd, Gurgaon vs DCIT, Central Circle-1(1), GurgaonITA 3877/DEL/2025[2023-24]Status: Disposed28 Nov 2025AY 2023-24
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Capri Global Capital LTD Through Represented By Its Law Officer Mr. Varun Kaljoria vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal SecretaryMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Laxman Singh Yadav vs. Bank Of BarodaMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Surendra Singh Rathore vs. Idfc First Bank Through Branch ManagerMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Aashutosh vs. The State Of Madhy PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 23 Oct 2026
- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026