TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 29X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gality in the orders of authorities below. Consequently, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed. - ITA No.1425/Bang/2018 - - - Dated:- 1-6-2018 - Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Judicial Member For the Appellant : Shri Narendra Sharma, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri Inder Salanik, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru ORDER This is an appeal by the Assessee against the order of CIT(Appeals), Bengaluru-6, Bengaluru relating to AY 2014-15. 2. The Assessee is an individual. The Assessee was entitled to claim deduction u/s.80IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) on income derived from power generation using wind energy. The Assessee made claim for deduction u/s.80IA of the Act for a sum of ₹ 27,80,819/- being profits derived from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in sub-section (1), the deduction, in computing the total income of an undertaking, which begins to manufacture or produce articles or things or computer software during the previous year relevant to any assessment year commencing on or after the 1st day of April, 2003, in any special economic zone, shall be,- (i) hundred per cent of profits and gains derived from the export of such articles or things or computer software for a period of five consecutive assessment years beginning with the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the undertaking begins to manufacture or produce such articles or things or computer software, as the case may be, and thereafter, fifty per cent of such profits and gains for further two consecu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther reductions. The legal position is by now settled that charging of interest under various sections including u/s 234A was mandatory. When one of the consequences for not filing return of income within the due date prescribed u/s 139(1) was mandatory then, other consequence for the same failure of the assessee could not be directory and the same was also mandatory. The provisions of the proviso to Section 10A(1A) was therefore held to be mandatory and not directory. 7. Another argument put forth before the Special Bench was that Sec.139(4) is a proviso to Sec.139(1) of the Act and therefore return filed before the time limit prescribed in Sec.139(4) should also be considered as a return filed u/s.139(1) of the Act. This argument was a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
