Commissioner Of Income Tax Delhi ... vs Web Commerce (India) Pvt. Ltd
2008 Latest Caselaw 2244 Del

*            THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                  Judgment delivered on 12.12.2008

+            ITA 552/2008

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
DELHI - VI                                                  ... Appellant


                                  - versus -


WEB COMMERCE (INDIA) PVT. LTD                               ... Respondent

Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Appellant : Ms Prem Lata Bansal with Mr Sanjeev Rajpal, Mr M P Gupta and Ms Anshul Sharma For the Respondent : Mr K. R. Manjani

CORAM:-

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ?

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest ?

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)

1. In the present appeal the appellant seeks to raise the question

of interpretation with regard to the provisions of Section 10B (5) of the

Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act'). The

said provision is virtually identical to the provisions of Section 80IA

(7) as also 80HHB (3) (ia). It is also identical to the erstwhile

provisions of Section 80J(6A) of the said Act.

2. This Court has already interpreted the latter provisions and

has held the same to be directory and not mandatory. The contention of

the revenue was that unless and until the audit report is filed along with

the return, the benefit of Section 10A cannot be available to the

assessee. Recently, we have considered the identical provisions of

Section 80IA (7) in the case of CIT v. Contimeters Electricals Private

Limited: ITA 1366/2008 decided on 02.12.2008 and held that as long

as the audit report is filed before the framing of the assessment, the

provisions of Section 80IA (7) would be complied with inasmuch as

the same are directory and not mandatory. A similar view would have

to be taken in the present case also inasmuch as the provisions are the

same. Consequently, we do not find any fault with the conclusions

arrived at by the Tribunal. No substantial question of law arises for our

consideration.

The appeal is dismissed.

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J December 12, 2008 SR