VittSphere ONE Calculators Blog CA Prabhakar Kumar · FCA · ICAI 560762
Case lawITAT › 360 One Distribution Services Ltd v DCIT — s.80A(5) kills a s.80JJAA claim first made before the Commissioner (Appeals)
ITATHelps departmentValidity unconfirmeds.80JJAAs.80A(5)s.115JBs.143(2)s.142(1)s.143(3)s.10As.10AAs.10B

360 One Distribution Services Ltd v DCIT — s.80A(5) kills a s.80JJAA claim first made before the Commissioner (Appeals)

We missed the s.80JJAA claim in the return and raised it for the first time in appeal, with the Form 10DA report in hand. Can the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Tribunal still allow it?

We missed the s.80JJAA claim in the return and raised it for the first time in appeal, with the Form 10DA report in hand. Can the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Tribunal still allow it?

No. The Mumbai Tribunal held that s.80A(5) disentitles an assessee from claiming a deduction under s.80JJAA where the claim was not made in the return of income, and that this disposes of the matter without going into any other aspect. It was no answer that the chartered accountant's Form 10DA had been issued, because the Tribunal found nothing on record that prevented the assessee from raising the claim and filing Form 10DA before the Assessing Officer during the scrutiny proceedings, which ran on until the assessment order was passed. The appeal was dismissed.

Decided by the ITAT (Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Accountant Member and Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Judicial Member (ITAT Mumbai 'C' Bench)) on 2026-02-20, reported as ITA No. 5282/MUM/2025, assessment year 2018-19; heard 10 February 2026, order pronounced 20 February 2026. It bears on section 80JJAA, section 80A(5), section 115JB, section 143(2), section 142(1), section 143(3), section 10A, section 10AA, section 10B of the Income Tax Act 1961, in Deductions & Disallowances and Appeals matters.

Validity check could not be completed. Validity check could not be completed. I read the order's header and the first line of each of its sixteen numbered paragraphs from the plain document URL and transcribed paragraphs 4 and 11 to 16 verbatim, including the disposal and the signature block; the operative sentence at paragraph 13 was re-verified through a separate document-fragment fetch, which returned it in identical words. The order is recent (20 February 2026) and I did NOT check for any appeal to the Bombay High Court and did not run a citator check.

Why it matters

This is the hard edge that a practitioner has to see before advising a client that a missed deduction can be picked up on appeal. Section 80A(5) is not a procedural irregularity that a first appellate authority can excuse; it is a substantive bar in terms — no deduction shall be allowed thereunder — and by its own words it covers s.10A, s.10AA, s.10B, s.10BA and every deduction in Part C of Chapter VI-A, which is where s.80JJAA sits. The Tribunal's reasoning also closes the sympathetic route: the assessee had a window of more than a year between the date of the accountant's report and the completion of the assessment, and did nothing with it, so the claim was not one that only became available later. Note the difference from the Form 10DA cases: a late but filed report is capable of condonation, as the Delhi Tribunal did for a one-day delay in ManpowerGroup Services India, but a claim never made in the return is a different failure and s.80A(5) answers it. Note also that s.80AC would independently have barred the claim had the return been late; here the return was on time, and the assessee still lost.

Binding on the AO and CIT(A) within the Tribunal's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere.

Not yet CA-verified. This entry was found through the sources listed under the Sources tab, and the summary reflects what those sources say. Nobody has yet read the full judgment and signed it off. Check the source before relying on it.

Read aloud by your device. Press again to stop.

Related

Other authorities on the same sections.