The portal would not accept Form 10-IC for FY 2019-20 before the Circular 6/2022 cut-off of 30 June 2022, and I filed it physically eleven days late. Is the s.115BAA benefit lost?
No. The Bombay High Court quashed the rejection under s.119(2)(b) and condoned the delay where the assessee had selected s.115BAA in the return, had saved a draft Form 10-IC on the portal before the cut-off but could not submit it because the Financial Year 2019-20 option was not available, and filed a physical Form with the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer eleven days after the extended date.
Decided by the High Court (B. P. Colabawalla J and Firdosh P. Pooniwalla J) on 2026-01-07, reported as Writ Petition No. 2175 of 2025 (Bombay High Court). It bears on section 115BAA, section 115BAA(5), section 115JB, section 119(2)(b), section 139(1), section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act 1961, in Assessment & Scrutiny and How Tax Law Is Read matters.
AY 2020-21 was the first year in which Form 10-IC was required at all, and the portal itself was defective. This is the decision to cite where the delay is short, is attributable to the department's own system, and the option is unambiguous on the face of the return. Note what was at stake beyond the rate: because the assessee had selected s.115BAA in the return, the Chapter VI-A and s.115JB portions of the return were automatically disabled, so denying the option left it exposed to a demand of over Rs. 1.61 crore including interest with no MAT computation available to it. Preserve the evidence of the portal failure — the assessee here produced a downloaded extract showing the draft Form saved at 17:14 on 25 March 2022, and that document did the work.
Binding within that High Court's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere.
Read aloud by your device. Press again to stop.
The petitioner, a closely held domestic company, filed its return for AY 2020-21 on 21 January 2021 declaring nil total income after adjusting unabsorbed depreciation of Rs. 7,90,70,837, having selected in the return the option to be assessed at the lower rate under s.115BAA. Because that option was selected, the portions of the return relating to Chapter VI-A deductions and to minimum alternate tax under s.115JB were automatically disabled. Form 10-IC, required by s.115BAA(5) read with Rule 21AE, was not filed by the due date for furnishing the return. CBDT Circular No. 6 of 2022 dated 17 March 2022 condoned the delay in filing the Form up to 30 June 2022 on the terms set out in it. The petitioner attempted to file Form 10-IC on the portal but could not do so because the option to select Financial Year 2019-20 was not available, and it saved a draft of the Form on the portal at 17:14 on 25 March 2022, producing a downloaded extract to establish this. The technical problem was resolved at some point without any public announcement, the petitioner lost track of the matter and missed the 30 June 2022 date. On 11 July 2022, eleven days late, it filed a physical copy of Form 10-IC with the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, and on 24 September 2023 applied to the CBDT for condonation. The application was rejected by order dated 28 January 2025, and the denial of s.115BAA and of exemption from s.115JB produced a demand of Rs. 1,61,69,670 including interest of Rs. 32,12,363 in an intimation under s.143(1) dated 20 December 2021.
The writ petition was allowed. The order dated 28 January 2025 under s.119(2)(b) was quashed and set aside and the delay in filing Form 10-IC was condoned, Rule being made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b), which included a direction that the petitioner's income be assessed at the lower rate under s.115BAA and that no assessment be made under s.115JB. No order as to costs.
From the portions read: the Court recorded that AY 2020-21 was admittedly the first year in which the filing of Form 10-IC was required in order to avail of the beneficial treatment under s.115BAA, following the amendment made by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act 2019, so the possibility that the petitioner had inadvertently or for the reasons narrated failed to file it in time could not be ruled out and the assessee ought not to be denied the benefit for such inadvertent delay; and it observed that it was precisely for this reason that the Board had issued various circulars empowering the Commissioner to condone the delay in genuine cases (para 17). On that footing the Court declined to accept the Revenue's submissions and held the impugned order could not be sustained (para 18).
Precisely for this reason, the Board had issued various Circulars empowering Respondent No.1 to condone the delay in filing of Form 10-IC in genuine cases.
Upload it and we will read it, work out your deadline and draft the reply. A CA reviews before anything is filed.
Handle my notice → Ask a CA on WhatsAppNo. The Bombay High Court quashed the rejection under s.119(2)(b) and condoned the delay where the assessee had selected s.115BAA in the return, had saved a draft Form 10-IC on the portal before the cut-off but could not submit it because the Financial Year 2019-20 option was not available, and filed a physical Form with the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer eleven days after the extended date. This was decided by the High Court (B. P. Colabawalla J and Firdosh P. Pooniwalla J) and bears on section 115BAA, section 115BAA(5), section 115JB, section 119(2)(b), section 139(1), section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act 1961. It is reported as Writ Petition No. 2175 of 2025 (Bombay High Court). AY 2020-21 was the first year in which Form 10-IC was required at all, and the portal itself was defective. This is the decision to cite where the delay is short, is attributable to the department's own system, and the option is unambiguous on the face of the return. Note what was at stake beyond the rate: because the assessee had selected s.115BAA in the return, the Chapter VI-A and s.115JB portions of the return were automatically disabled, so denying the option left it exposed to a demand of over Rs. 1.61 crore including interest with no MAT computation available to it. Preserve the evidence of the portal failure — the assessee here produced a downloaded extract showing the draft Form saved at 17:14 on 25 March 2022, and that document did the work. If it applies to you, the first step is this: Download and preserve any portal artefact showing an attempted filing — a saved draft, a timestamp, an error screen — before it is overwritten; the Court relied on a dated and timed extract.
The petitioner, a closely held domestic company, filed its return for AY 2020-21 on 21 January 2021 declaring nil total income after adjusting unabsorbed depreciation of Rs. 7,90,70,837, having selected in the return the option to be assessed at the lower rate under s.115BAA. Because that option was selected, the portions of the return relating to Chapter VI-A deductions and to minimum alternate tax under s.115JB were automatically disabled. Form 10-IC, required by s.115BAA(5) read with Rule 21AE, was not filed by the due date for furnishing the return. CBDT Circular No. 6 of 2022 dated 17 March 2022 condoned the delay in filing the Form up to 30 June 2022 on the terms set out in it. The petitioner attempted to file Form 10-IC on the portal but could not do so because the option to select Financial Year 2019-20 was not available, and it saved a draft of the Form on the portal at 17:14 on 25 March 2022, producing a downloaded extract to establish this. The technical problem was resolved at some point without any public announcement, the petitioner lost track of the matter and missed the 30 June 2022 date. On 11 July 2022, eleven days late, it filed a physical copy of Form 10-IC with the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, and on 24 September 2023 applied to the CBDT for condonation. The application was rejected by order dated 28 January 2025, and the denial of s.115BAA and of exemption from s.115JB produced a demand of Rs. 1,61,69,670 including interest of Rs. 32,12,363 in an intimation under s.143(1) dated 20 December 2021. The matter was decided on 2026-01-07 by the High Court (B. P. Colabawalla J and Firdosh P. Pooniwalla J). On those facts the High Court held as follows. The writ petition was allowed. The order dated 28 January 2025 under s.119(2)(b) was quashed and set aside and the delay in filing Form 10-IC was condoned, Rule being made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b), which included a direction that the petitioner's income be assessed at the lower rate under s.115BAA and that no assessment be made under s.115JB. No order as to costs.
From the portions read: the Court recorded that AY 2020-21 was admittedly the first year in which the filing of Form 10-IC was required in order to avail of the beneficial treatment under s.115BAA, following the amendment made by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act 2019, so the possibility that the petitioner had inadvertently or for the reasons narrated failed to file it in time could not be ruled out and the assessee ought not to be denied the benefit for such inadvertent delay; and it observed that it was precisely for this reason that the Board had issued various circulars empowering the Commissioner to condone the delay in genuine cases (para 17). On that footing the Court declined to accept the Revenue's submissions and held the impugned order could not be sustained (para 18). In the words reproduced by the source cited on this page: "Precisely for this reason, the Board had issued various Circulars empowering Respondent No.1 to condone the delay in filing of Form 10-IC in genuine cases."
It was decided by the High Court on 2026-01-07 and is reported as Writ Petition No. 2175 of 2025 (Bombay High Court). Binding within that High Court's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere. A High Court decision binds the assessing officer, the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal within that state, and is persuasive elsewhere. If your assessment is in a different jurisdiction, check whether your own High Court has taken the same view before relying on it. On section 115BAA, section 115BAA(5), section 115JB, section 119(2)(b), section 139(1), section 143(1), the practical question is whether the facts of your own notice match the facts of this case closely enough for the same rule to apply.
It helps the taxpayer. The writ petition was allowed. The order dated 28 January 2025 under s.119(2)(b) was quashed and set aside and the delay in filing Form 10-IC was condoned, Rule being made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b), which included a direction that the petitioner's income be assessed at the lower rate under s.115BAA and that no assessment be made under s.115JB. No order as to costs. It arises in Assessment & Scrutiny and How Tax Law Is Read matters, on section 115BAA, section 115BAA(5), section 115JB, section 119(2)(b), section 139(1), section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act 1961, and was decided by B. P. Colabawalla J and Firdosh P. Pooniwalla J. Before relying on it, read the source linked on this page and check whether it has since been distinguished, overruled or overtaken by an amendment to the Income Tax Act. In practice the steps that follow from it are these. If the electronic Form could not be submitted, file a physical Form 10-IC with the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer and keep the inward acknowledgement; that is what was done here and the Court treated it as a filing. Plead the first-year point expressly: AY 2020-21 was the first year in which Form 10-IC was required, following the insertion of s.115BAA by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act 2019. Quantify the consequence in the petition — the rate differential plus interest plus the loss of the s.115JB route — because the Court's reasoning on genuine hardship runs on the size of the consequence. Check the three-year outer bar in Circular No. 17/2024 before applying; this application was made on 24 September 2023, within three years of the end of AY 2020-21.
Validity check could not be completed. Validity check could not be completed. No search for later treatment was run, and paragraphs 7 to 16 of the judgment were not read. No source could be cited for that finding. Checking whether an authority still stands matters as much as knowing what it held: a decision may be overruled on one point and survive on another, or the provision it interprets may have been amended since. Read the source and the editor's note on this page before relying on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal.
I could not obtain the full order verbatim. The first attempt at a full transcription was refused; a second, portion-by-portion request returned the cause title, paragraphs 1 to 6 and paragraphs 17 to 21 in a verbatim block. Paragraphs 7 to 16 — which contain the Revenue's submissions and the bulk of the Court's discussion — were not read. The facts, holding and quote below come only from the portions actually read. A later pass should retrieve paragraphs 7 to 16 before relying on any reasoning not stated here. This library shows the verification state of every entry openly. This entry has not yet been read in full by a chartered accountant. The summary reflects the sources listed on this page. Read the source before you rely on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
The writ petition was allowed. The order dated 28 January 2025 under s.119(2)(b) was quashed and set aside and the delay in filing Form 10-IC was condoned, Rule being made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b), which included a direction that the petitioner's income be assessed at the lower rate under s.115BAA and that no assessment be made under s.115JB. No order as to costs.
Every entry in this library links to where it was found, so you can check it yourself rather than take our word for it.
My return was only processed under 143(1). Does that stop the department reopening it later?
The CBDT rejected my condonation application without dealing with my reasons. Can I challenge that?
A declaration was required by the due date and you filed it late. Is that fatal?
I did not tick s.115BAA in the return and filed Form 10-IC late. Can I still get the concessional rate?