STAR WIRE (INDIA) VIDYUT PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-22(2), DELHI

2. That, on the facts and circumstances of the case, CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the AO in disallowing claim for deduction made under section 80IA(4)(iv) at Rs. 4,40,03,570/- solely on the ground that the due for filing of Form No.10CCB was 30.09.2023 while the actual date for filing is 23.10.2023.

3. That, on the facts and circumstances of the case, CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the AO in disallowing entire Business Promotion Expenses of Rs. 24,25,784/- in spite of the fact that complete details as well as evidence was submitted in the course of assessment proceedings.

4. That, on the facts and circumstances of the case, CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the AO in disallowing entire Travelling Expenses Rs. 67,05,749/- in spite of the fact that complete details as well as evidence was submitted in the course of assessment proceedings.

5. That, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the AO has erred in disallowing the entire claim of Business Promotion Expenses and Travelling Expenses amounting to Rs.91,41,533/- on the basis of alleged discrepancy in invoices amounting to approximately Rs. 39,000/- 6. That, without prejudice to the above, the Business Promotion Expenses and Travelling Expenses incurred is well justified for the main reason that the entire sale is made to State Government and the expense is required for approval of monthly bills of the electricity supplied, the verification of the unit sold by the officials of the State Govt., attending audit officials, meeting consultants for new projects for expansion and exploring new site locations etc.

7. That, on facts and circumstances of the case AO erred in levying interest of Rs. 13,61,784/-under Section 234B of the Act.

8. That, without prejudice to the above, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the AO erred in computing the total interest payable by the Appellant at Rs. 18,57,332/- instead of Rs. 13,61,784/-.

9. That, on facts and circumstances of the case the AO has erred in stating in the Computation Sheet that the refund amounting to Rs. 69,04,670/- has already been issued to the Appellant whereas, no such refund has been paid till date.

10. That on facts and circumstances of the case AO erred in initiating penalty under Section 270A of the Act.

11. Where there is any delay in filing of appeal(if yes, please attach application seeking condonation of delay).”

4. On hearing both the sides, we find that admittedly Form 10CB was filed on 23.10.2023 and the same was filed during the assessment proceedings. The issue is no more res-integra after the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Maharashtra vs G.M. Knitting Industries Pvt. Ltd. [2015] 376 ITR 453(SC), wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that even though necessary certificate in Form 10CCB has not been filed along with return of income and has been filed before final assessment order was made, the assessee was entitled to claim deduction under section 80IB of the Act. The Co-ordinate Bench at Kolkata in the case of ACIT, Circle-7(1), Kolkata vs Hi Tech Systems and Services Ltd. has also held in para-5 to 6 that the filing of the Form 10CCB on or before the specific date was only directory and not mandatory. The relevant part of the order of the aforesaid case is reproduced as under:-

5. We note that the issue is squarely covered by the various decisions of the Hon’ble High Court as well as Coordinate Benches of this Tribunal. Reliance in this respect can be placed on the recent decision of the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Desai Infra Projects (I) Private Limited Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Pune, order dated 30.12.2024, wherein, the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in almost identical facts and circumstances and in relation to the assessment year 2022-23 itself, wherein the denial of deduction was made by the CPC while processing the return u/s. 143(1) of the Act itself. The Coordinate Bench, while deliberating upon the relevant provisions of the Act and also placing reliance on the various case laws, has held that since the assessee has duly filed Form 10CCB much before the date when the return of the assessee was processed by the CPC u/s. 143(1) of the Act and the assessee was also claiming and was allowed deduction u/s. 80IA in the earlier assessment years then, there was no justification on the part of the CPC to deny the deduction for small delay in filing the audit report in Form 10CCB. The relevant part of the order of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Desai Infra Projects (I) Private Limited (supra) is reproduced as under: “6. We have heard rival submissions made by both the sides and perused the material available on record. We find the assessee in it’s return of income had claimed deduction of Rs.3,42,22,760/- u/sec.80IA(4)(i) of the Act, which was denied by the CPC in the intimation passed u/sec.143(1) of the Act. We find the Ld. CIT(A) rejected the arguments advanced by the assessee and dismissed the appeal, the reasons of which, have already reproduced in the preceding paragraphs. It is the submission of the Learned Counsel for the Assessee that the CPC does not have any power to deny the claim of deduction u/sec.80IA(4) while processing the return u/sec.143(1). It is also his argument that since the assessee has filed the audit report before the processing of the return and since filing of audit report is directory and not mandatory, therefore, the deduction should not have been denied. 6.1. We find some force in the above arguments of the Learned Counsel for the Assessee. Admittedly, in the instant case, the assessee has filed audit report in Form-10CCB on 31.10.2022 and the CPC has processed the return of income on 16.03.2023. It is also an admitted fact that as per the intimation u/sec.143(1), the extended due date for filing of the return for the assessment year 2022-2023 is 07.11.2022. 6.2. We find an identical issue had come-up before the Chennai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Natesan Precision Components Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT in ITA.No.1397/Chny/2024, order dated 09.08.2024 for the assessment year 2018-2019, wherein it has been held that a claim of deduction u/sec.80IA(4) cannot be denied merely because the audit report in Form-10CCB was filed belatedly i.e., not along with the return of income. The relevant observations of the Tribunal are as under : “8. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. We find that this was the 8th year of claiming deduction u/s.80IA of the Act and in earlier year AY, the CPC denied the deduction only on the ground that Audit Report/ Form No.10CCB was belatedly e-filed i.e, not along with the return of income. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the action of the CPC by holding that the assessee ought to have filed Form No.10CCB on the due date, which requirement of law, we note came w.e.f. 01.04.2020 and is not applicable for AY 2017-18. Having said so, we note that the assessee had e-filed Form No.10CCB before the CPC had processed the return of income u/s 143(1) of the Act; and therefore, the deduction claimed ought to have been allowed as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of GM Knitting Industries (P.) Ltd., (supra), wherein the Apex Court had an occasion to examine the action of Bombay High Court holding that if Form 3AA is filed before the assessment proceedings culminated, then additional depreciation shall be allowed and such a claim should not be denied only because assessee did not furnish Form 3AA along with return of income. And the Hon’ble Apex Court, affirmed the action of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay as well as tagged along matter wherein Revenue challenged the action of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in AKS Alloys Pvt. Ltd (supra) and the Civil Appeal of department was dismissed, which means the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court has been affirmed by Hon’ble Supreme Court, and is binding precedent that if assessee had filed the Form 10CCB before the assessment proceedings culminate, then the deduction claimed u/s.80IB ought not to be denied on the reason that assessee did not file Form 10CCB along with Return of Income (ROI). We also note the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in M/s. Wipro Ltd. (supra) was in the context of that assessee’s [Wipro] claim of exemption under Chapter III, in contra-distinction to the claim raised by the present assessee under Chapter VI-A. And it would be gainful to reproduce the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s observation in M/s. Wipro Ltd., wherein in the distinction in the claim made for exemption under Chapter17 ITA.No.1852/PUN./2024 III and deduction claimed under Chapter VI was noted as under : “11. Now so far as the reliance placed upon the decision of this Court in the case of G.M. Knitting Industries Pvt. Ltd. (supra), relied upon by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee is Section 10B (8) is an exemption provision which cannot be compared with claiming an additional depreciation under section 32(1) (ii-a) of the Act. As per the settled position of law, an assessee claiming exemption has to strictly and literally comply with the exemption provisions. Therefore, the said decision shall not be applicable to the facts of the case on hand, while considering the exemption provisions. Even otherwise, Chapter III and Chapter VIA of the Act operate in different realms and principles of Chapter III, which deals with "incomes which do not Form a part of total income", cannot be equated with mechanism provided for deductions in Chapter VIA, which deals with "deductions to made in computing total income". Therefore, none of the decisions which are relied upon on behalf of the assessee on interpretation of Chapter VIA shall be applicable while considering the claim under Section 10B (8) of the IT Act. [emphasis given by us]”

9. In the light of the discussion, and taking note that assessee had efiled the audit report in Form 10CCB on 30.03.2019 and processing by CPC u/s.143(1) of the Act took place only on 12.01.2020, which is an event much after the assessee had e-filed the Form 10CCB, therefore, the claim of deduction ought to have been granted especially when assessee was granted such a deduction for the earlier 5 years. Therefore, we set-aside the impugned order of Ld. CIT(A)/JCIT(A) and direct the AO to allow the claim of deduction u/s.80IA of the Act.

by the assessee are allowed.

7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.”

6. Reliance in this respect can also be placed on the decision of the ITAT, Delhi Bench in the case of Sanjay Kukreja Vs. ACIT, dated 30.01.2024 (AY 2019-20), wherein the Tribunal, while relying upon the various case laws, has held that the filing of the Form 10CCB on or before the specified date was only directory and not mandatory. The relevant part of the order of the coordinate Bench of ITAT, Delhi in the case of S. Kukreja (supra) is reproduced as under: “5. Heard rival submissions. The only issue is to be decided is as to whether the Form 10CCB is mandatorily to be filed along with the return or the due date specified u/s 139(1) of the Act for claiming deduction u/s 80IA of the Act. We observe that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Contimeters Electricals Pvt. Ltd. (supra) held that the requirement of filing the audit report along with the return is not mandatory but directory and that if the audit report is filed at any time before framing of assessment the requirement of section 80IA(7) would be met observing as under: “According to the Commissioner of Income Tax since no audit report, duly verified and signed in the prescribed Form no.10CCB under Rule 18BBB had been furnished along with the return, the condition for claiming deduction had not been satisfied and, therefore, the action of the Assessing Officer in allowing rebate u/s 80-IA was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. After issuance of the notice the Commissioner of Income Tax passed the order dated 29.03.2007 whereby he held that he was fully satisfied that the assessment which had been completed by the Assessing Officer was prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue and that it was erroneous in as much as the assessee had not satisfied the conditions laid down u/s 80- IA and consequently the deduction under that section for the sum of Rs.14,27,351/- had been wrongly allowed. The CIT(A), therefore, cancelled the assessment which had been earlier framed and directed the AO to complete the assessment as per law, in terms of the directions given in the said order. Being aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal which was allowed by the Tribunal by virtue of the impugned order. The Tribunal took the view that the provisions of section 80IA(7) with regard to filing of the audit report along with the return were not mandatory and were merely directory. In coming to such conclusion, the Tribunal referred to the decisions of the Gujarat High Court in CIT vs. Gujarat Oil & Allied Industries, 201 ITR 325 (Guj.). In that decision the provisions of Section 80J(6A) were considered. The wording of Section 80J(6A) is similar to that of section 80-IA(7) which is in issue in the present appeal. The Gujarat High Court took the view that the word ‘shall’ which occurs in section 80J(6A) be read as ‘may’ and that the requirement of filing of an audit report along with the return was only to be taken as directory in nature. The Gujarat High Court took the view that in case the audit report is submitted at any time before the framing of the assessment, there would be substantial compliance with the provisions of Section 80J(6A). The Tribunal also relied on the decision of the Madras High Court in CIT vs. A.N. Arunachalam, 208 ITR 481 (Mad.), which, again, while considering the provisions of Section 80J(6A), took the same view as that of the Gujarat High Court. We notice that there are other decisions of other Courts taking the same view. The decisions being, CIT vs. Shivanand Electricals (1994) 209 ITR 63 (Bombay); Zenith Processing Mills vs. CIT (1996) 219 ITR 721 (Guj.); Cit vs. Jayant Patel (2001) 248 ITR 199 (Mad.) and CIT vs. Mahalaxmi Rice Factory (2007) 294 ITR 631 (P&H). In view of this long line on decisions of various High Courts in considering the provisions of Section 80J(6A) which are similar to the provisions of Section 80IA(7), we feel that the Tribunal has arrived at the correct conclusion that the requirement of filing the audit report along with the return is not mandatory but directory and that if the audit report is filed at any time before the framing of the assessment, the requirement of section 80IA(7) would be met.”

6. We find that similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. AKS Alloys Pvt. Ltd. (supra), wherein it has been held as under:

“5. In so far as it relates to the substantial question of law (1) is concerned, namely, whether the filing of audit report in Form 10CCB is mandatory, it is well settled by a number of judicial precedents that before the assessment is completed, the declaration could be filed. In fact, the said issue came to be decided by the Karnataka High Court in the case in CIT v. ACE Multitaxes Systems (P.) LTD. [2009] 317 ITR 207 (Kar.), wherein it was held that when a relief is sought for under Section 80IB of the Act, there is no obligation on the part of the assessee to file return accompanied by the audit report, thereby, holding that the same is not mandatory. Therefore, it is clear that before the assessment is completed if such report is filed, no fault could be found against the assessee. That was also the view of the Delhi High Court in the case in CIT v. Contimeters Electricals (P.) Ltd. [2009] 317 ITR 249/ 178 Taxman 422 (Delhi), wherein the Delhi High Court, by following the judgements of the Madras High Court in CIT v. A.N. Arunachalam [1994] 208 ITR 481 / 75 Taxman 529 and in CIT v.Jayant Patel [2001] 248 ITR 199/ 117 Taxman 707 (Mad.) held that the filing of audit report along with the return was not mandatory but directory and that if the audit report was filed at any time before the framing of the assessment, the requirement of the provisions of the Act should be held to have been met.

8. Mr. T. Ravikumar, the learned counsel for the appellant is not able to produce any other judgement contrary to the above said views consistently taken.”

9. In the light of the above, by virtue of hierarchy of judgements which are against the Revenue, the substantial question of law (1) would not arise at all for consideration.”

7. Similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Surya Merchands Ltd. 387 ITR 105 and the Hon’ble High Court of Uttrakhand in the case of CIT Vs. Sanjay Kumar Bansal 35 taxmann.com 514, and Honb’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. ACE Multi Taxes Systems Pvt. Ltd. 317 ITR 207. The ratios of the above decision squarely applying to the facts of the case, we hold that filing of audit report in Form 10CCB before the due date for filing of return of income u/s 139(1) is only directory and not mandatory for the year under consideration. Thus, we direct the AO to allow deduction claimed u/s 80IA of the Act. Grounds raised by the assessee are allowed.

8. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. 8.In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.”

5. Thus, we have no hesitation to conclude that the Ld. CIT(A) has committed error in not taking into consideration the decisions cited by the assessee and on the contrary relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs Wipro Ltd. [2022] 140 taxmann.com 223/227/446 ITR 1(SC), wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court was dealing with that claim of deduction u/s 10B of the Act and has held that furnishing of Form 56F along with return of income was mandatory requirement. Accordingly, we decide the ground no.2 in favour of the assessee.

6. As regards ground no.3 to 6, the ld. AR has drawn our attention to the fact that the ld. CIT(A) himself observed in para-5 while reproducing the submissions of the assessee that the assessee company has submitted the details of disputed expenses with full narration along with scanned copy of the relevant vouchers/bills/supporting evidence and the same were also submitted before the First Appellate Authority. The ld. AR has claimed that assessee has registered office at New Delhi and administrative office at Kolkata and Bio- Mass power generation plant is located at Mohindergarh, Haryana, thus there has to be extensive travelling of management and staff. However, without pointing out any infirmities in the evidences filed, Ld. CIT(A) held that there was not business exigency.

7. Although, the ld. DR has submitted that on test check basis evidences were considered but the same is not reflected rather it was on the basis of unsatisfactory explanation for the reasons of travelling, the disallowance was sustained.

Order pronounced in the open court on 17th September, 2025.