Pr. Commissioner of Income TAX-06 v. Matangi Rubber Pvt. Ltd.
Delhi HCITA/8/2016
Case brief
AI extract
What is this about?
This appeal concerned the validity of an ITAT order allowing a tax deduction for a belated return filed by a technical delay of 46 minutes. The court dismissed the appeal, refusing to frame a question of law on the mandatory nature of Section 80AC.
What did the court decide?
The appeal is dismissed; no question of law is framed.
What the court decided
AI extract
¶1
$~
¶2
- IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
¶3
- 3. + ITA 8/2016 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-06 ..... Appellant Through: Mr Rahul Chaudhary, Senior Standing Counsel.
¶4
- versus
¶5
- MATANGI RUBBER PVT. LTD. ..... Respondent Through
¶6
- CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU O R D E R
¶7
- % 12.01.2016
¶8
- This appeal is directed against the order dated 29th May, 2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘ITAT’) in ITA No.4498/Del/2013 for the Assessment Year ‘AY’ 2009-10.
¶9
- The question sought to be urged was whether the ITAT was legally justified in allowing deduction under Section 80IC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’) notwithstanding that the Assessee had failed to file its return within the time prescribed under Section 139(1) of the Act and holding that the provisions of Section 80AC are directory?
¶10
- The Assessee filed its return of income on 1st October, 2009 declaring Nil income after claiming deduction of Rs. 2,34,41,162/- under Section 80IC of the Act. While, completing the assessment by an order dated 5th December, 2011 the Assessing Officer (‘AO’) disallowed the deduction claimed since the return was not filed within the due date prescribed under Section 139(1) of the Act. The ITAT has in the impugned order while concurring the order of the Commissioner
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
AI extract
Whether the ITAT was legally justified in allowing deduction under Section 80IC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 despite failure to file the return within the time prescribed under Section 139(1) and holdi
Parties & counsel
AI extract
- appellant
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-06
- respondent
MATANGI RUBBER PVT. LTD.
Coram
AI extract
S.MURALIDHAR
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
Commissioner of Income Tax (Ltu) Vs Rural Electrification Corporation Limited
Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-Ii Vs Som Pan Products Alloys Pvt. Ltd.
Akshey Gupta Vs the Commissioner of Customs (General)
Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (CENTRAL-2) Vs Satkar Roadlines Pvt. Ltd. (Now Known as Aden Marketing Pvt. Ltd.)