Back
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (MUMBAI BENCH)
Vikram Singh Yadav, Accountant Member, Anikesh Banerjee, Judicial Member
Electronfab Engineering Pvt – Appellant
Versus
CPC/ITO Ltd. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. assessee filed original return, received defect notice, filed form 10-ic before corrected return. (Para 2 , 4) |
| 2. revised return under 139(5) substitutes original; form 10-ic delay condonable if intent clear. (Para 3 , 5 , 6 , 9) |
| 3. no option in original return disqualifies 115baa benefit per delhi hc. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 4. procedural lapse in form 10-ic timing does not defeat substantive 115baa claim. (Para 10) |
| 5. appeal allowed; ao to verify and grant 115baa benefit. (Para 11) |
ORDER
Per: Anikesh Banerjee (JM):
The instant appeal of the assessee preferred against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal ADDL/JCIT-(A), Bhubaneswar [for brevity ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’], order passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act 1961 (for brevity ‘the Act’) for assessment year 2024-25, date of order 30.05.2025. The impugned order emanated from the order of the CPC Bengaluru (for brevity the ‘Ld. AO’) order passed under section 143(1) of the Act date of order 22.01.2025.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a company incorporated under Companies Act 1956, owns 11 flats and earn rental income by letting the flats to “Advance Power Display System Limited”. The a
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
