IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2018-19, 2020-21 Dussters Total Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Dy. Commissioner of

332/1, Corporate Miller, 3^rd Floor, Income Tax, Thimmaiah Road, 3^rd Floor, Circle – 2(1)(1), Bangalore.

Vasanth Nagar, Bangalore – 560 052.

.

PAN – AACCD 5989 Q APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Smt. Kavita Jha, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Shivanand H Kalakeri, CIT (DR)

Date of hearing : 04.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement : .12.2025

O R D E R

PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

These appeals are filed by the assessee against the assessment order passed by the NFAC, Delhi vide order dated 17/01/2025, 21/01/2025, 27/02/2025 for the assessment year 2018-19 and 2020-21.

First, we take up ITA No. 652/Bang/2025, an appeal by the assessee for the A.Y. 2018-19

2. The interconnected issue raised by the assessee through Ground Nos. 1 to 9 pertains to the disallowances of deduction claimed under section 80JJAA of the Act for Rs. 14,81,19,175/- only.

3. The relevant facts are that the assessee, a private limited company, is providing facility management services to industry verticals. In the return filed for the year under consideration, the assessee claimed deduction under section 80JJAA of the Act for Rs. 14,81,19,175/-. The return was selected for scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) of the Act.

4. During the assessment proceedings, the AO observed that the claim of the assessee under section 80JJAA of the Act for an amount of Rs. 6,79,40,579/- pertains to the immediate previous F.Y. 2016-17 (relevant to A.Y. 2017-18) and remaining amount of Rs. 8,01,78,596/- pertains to the year under consideration. The AO was of the view that the provisions of section 80JJAA of the Act before the amendment brought by Finance Act No. 28 of 2016 w.e.f. 1^st April 2017 require the assessee to be engaged in the manufacturing activity to claim the deduction under this section. However, the assessee is providing facility management services to industry verticals. Hence the AO disallowed the claim deduction of Rs. 6,79,40,579/- pertaining to A.Y. 2017-18 on the grounds that the assessee did not meet the condition to claim deduction under section 80JJAA of the Act.

4.1 Regarding the remaining claim of deduction of Rs. 8,01,78,596/- the AO noted that the assessee is eligible to claim deduction as after amendment there is no requirement of being carried out manufacturing activity. However, the AO noted that assessee has not provided the PAN to prove the identity and genuineness of new employees. Further, in cases where PAN were provided for few employees, some of them were also found to be wrong PAN.

4.2 However, the assessee contended that an individual only requires to obtain PAN if his/her income exceeds the threshold limit chargeable to tax. As such, the income of most of the new employees was below the taxable limit therefore the Adhar Card of all the employees was obtained and updated in the system. However, the AO rejected this explanation of the assessee. The AO noted that the annual salary of the employee excluding pension fund and provident fund are varying between Rs. 2,06,600/- to 2,94,276/-. Hence, considering the PF and Pension fund, the annual salary of so claimed new employees exceeds the maximum limit of Rs. 2.5 lakh. Furthermore, the employer (assessee) is required to issue Form-16 in respect of each and every employee considering their income from all sources. But no Form 16 was issued or furnished by the assessee.

4.3 In addition, the AO found that audit report filed by the assessee in Form-10DA for claiming deduction is incomplete. The crucial information in columns Nos. 5(c) to 5(e) is missing. No revised Form 10DA was filed by the assessee. Furthermore, as per the details provided, the new employees were not employed for prescribed period.

In view of the above, the AO concluded that the deduction claimed by the ass