“gross total income”

Chapter VI - Deductions / Set-offSection 80B(5)Section 80B(5) / Rule 3D2,282 judgments

The decision most relied on for gross total income is CIT v. Andhra Pradesh State (200 Taxmann 220), cited in 348 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on gross total income

CIT v. Andhra Pradesh State

200 Taxmann 220 · 2011 · High Court

348

citing judgments

Interest earned by a Co-operative Society from investing fixed deposits in banks is entitled to a deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income-tax Act.

CIT v. Yokogawa India Ltd.

391 ITR 274 · 2017 · Supreme Court

290

citing judgments

Deduction under Section 10A or 10AA of the Income-tax Act is computed on the profits of the eligible unit without first setting off losses from other units or non-eligible units. Conversely, losses incurred by an eligible unit are allowed to be set off against the assessee's other taxable business profits.

ACG Associated Capsules (P) Ltd. v. CIT

343 ITR 89 · 2012 · Supreme Court

144

citing judgments

For calculation of deduction under Section 80HHC, if total interest is netted off after adjusting interest paid and received, the 90% reduction specified in Explanation (baa) is not applicable.

Synco Industries Ltd. v. Assessing Officer (IT) & Another

299 ITR 444 · 2008 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

When computing deductions under Chapter VI-A, such as Section 80IA, losses from other business undertakings must be set off against the profits of the eligible undertaking before calculating the deduction. No deduction under Section 80IA is permissible if the overall 'Profits & Gains of Business or Profession' results in a loss.

CIT v. Himatasingike Seide Ltd.

286 ITR 255 · 2006 · High Court

citing judgments

Deduction under Section 10A of the Income-tax Act is to be allowed only after setting off unabsorbed depreciation and brought forward business losses against the profits of the business.

CIT v. Williamson Financial Services

165 Taxmann 638 · 2007 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

Income-tax is levied on the total income of an assessee, not on gross receipts. The tax is on income, and deductions for expenditure are permissible.

CIT v. Reliance Energy Limited

127 Taxmann.com 69 · 2021 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

Deduction under Section 80-IA or 80-IB is computed by setting it off against the gross total income to arrive at the total income of an assessee.

CIT v. Tridoss Laboratories Ltd.

328 ITR 448 · 2010 · High Court

citing judgments

Deductions under Chapter VI-A of the Income Tax Act, such as Section 80-IA, are to be calculated and allowed with reference to the assessee's gross total income, not just business income.

Judgments citing gross total income

ACIT Cen Ci-43 vs. Roha Dyechem P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and revenue except ITA No

ITA 10/MUM/2009[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2004-05 Acit Cen Ci-43 Rohadyechem Pvt Ltd., 6Th Floor, R.No. 659, Aayakar Survoday Mill Compund, Bhavan, M.K.Rd. Vs. M.P. Mills, Tardeo, Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai-400 034 Pan No. Aaacr 4974P Appellant Respondent

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80HSection 80ISection 92C

this case, whether the interest is treated as interest from other sources or interest from business as both are consolidated under the head gross total income but the main contention is with reference to eligibility for deduction under section 80I and 80IB which cannot

Maitri Heights Co-Op Hsg Society Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT/ ACIT, CPC Bangalore, Bangalore

ITA 2369/MUM/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, D.R

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 234ASection 271Section 80P(2)(d)

adjudication of the issue before us. “80P(2)(d) (1). Where in the case of an assessee being a co-operative society, the gross total income includes any income referred to in sub- section (2), there shall be deducted, in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this section

Tata Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT Circle- 2 (3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 217/MUM/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Section 115Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 80G

whether the assessee would be entitled for deduction u/s 80G of the Act from the foreign dividend income forming part of Gross Total Income. The assessee has also raised additional ground vide its letter dated 24/06/2021 wherein it had challenged the action of the revenue in not allowing the brought ... earlier years with the foreign dividend income ; and c) assessee would be eligible for deduction u/s 80G of the Act from the Gross Total Income subject to the restrictions provided in that relevant section. 2.12. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee and the additional ground raised by the assessee

Mukesh Gupta, Mumbai vs. Asstt CIT-Central Circle-1, Thane

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 886/MUM/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 132Section 142Section 153ASection 250

undisclosed sources (Para 21) 245000 Addition on account of income from unexplained sources (Para 22) 118868 Income from Undisclosed Sources (Para No.23) 535000 GROSS TOTAL INCOME 25592690 Less Deductions under Chapter VI-A Nil Assessed Total Income 25592960 27. From the above additions, we observe that Assessing Officer has disallowed

Mukesh Gupta, Mumbai vs. Asstt CIT, Central Circle-1, Thane

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 885/MUM/2022[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 132Section 142Section 153ASection 250

Mukesh Gupta, Mumbai vs. Asstt. CIT, Central Circle- 1. Thane, Thane

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 884/MUM/2022[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 132Section 142Section 153ASection 250

Mukesh Gupta, Mumbai vs. Asstt.CIT Central Circle-1 Thane, Thane

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 883/MUM/2022[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 132Section 142Section 153ASection 250

DCIT Cent. Cir-2(3), Mumbai vs. Soma Enterprises, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1818/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Section 127(2)Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

Disallowance of legal expenses as per para— 8 Income from other sources(As per return 50,849 II of income) Gross Total Income 4,28,14,332 Chapter VI-A deductions - Less: u/s 80G - Donation 9,30,686 Total Income 4,18,83,646 Total Income R/off ... para-6) II Income from other source (as per return of 28,094 income ) Gross Total Income 4,65,41,884 Chapter VI-A deductions Less: u/s 80G - Donation 3,00,000 Total Income 4,62,41,884 Total Income R/off

DCIT Central Cir 2(3), Mumbai vs. Soma Enterprises Ltd, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1817/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Section 127(2)Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

DCIT 8(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Vodafone India Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid

ITA 5598/MUM/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 5598/मुं/2017 ("न.व. 2005-06) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax – 8(3)(2), Room No.615, 6Th Floor, Aaykarbhavan, M.K.Road, ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Mumbai – 400 020 बनाम Vs. M/S. Vodafone India Ltd. (Formerly Vodafone Essar Ltd.) Peninsula Corporate Park, Ganpat Rao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai 400 013. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent Pan: Aaach-5332-B आअसं. 5078/मुं/2017 ("न.व. 2005-06) M/S. Vodafone India Ltd. (Formerly Vodafone Essar Ltd.) Peninsula Corporate Park, Ganpat Rao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai 400 013. ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aaach-5332-B बनाम Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax – 8(3)(2), Room No.615, 6Th Floor, Aaykarbhavan, M.K.Road, ...... ""तवाद"/Respondent Mumbai – 400 020 Revenue By : S/Shrianand Mohan&Ajay K.R.Kesari Assessee By :S/Shri Salil Kapoor, Ketanved & Ms. Soumya Singh

For Appellant: S/Shri Salil Kapoor, KetanVed and Ms. Soumya SinghFor Respondent: S/ShriAnand Mohan&Ajay K.R.Kesari

Section 114Section 143(3)Section 263Section 801ASection 80I

unambiguous in the context it is to be construed. Deduction under section 80- IA in terms of sub- section (1) is available to “gross total income” of an assessee where “gross total income” is restricted to “profits and gains derived by........ from any business referred to in sub-section ... which the legislature describes as “eligible business”. The said sub-section sets out in unequivocal terms that the deduction is available to the gross total income of such undertaking/enterprise which “includes” “profits and gains derived from” such business. The meaning and limits of first degree nexus of the said phrase

Vodafone India Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 8(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid

ITA 5078/MUM/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2022AY 2005-06

For Appellant: S/Shri Salil Kapoor, KetanVed and Ms. Soumya SinghFor Respondent: S/ShriAnand Mohan&Ajay K.R.Kesari

Section 114Section 143(3)Section 263Section 801ASection 80I

M/S. Bharathi Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(2)(3), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 793/BANG/2022[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Prayadarshini Baseganni, Addl.CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

business of banking or providing credit facilities to its members by a co-operative society and is liable to be deducted from the gross total income under Section 80P of the Act. The Hon’ble Court also distinguished the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case ... assessee was taxable under the head 'Income from Other Sources' under Section 56 of the Act and was not 100% deductible from the Gross Total Income under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act, is not applicable to the present Assessment Years 2007-2008 to 2011-2012 involved

M/S Infosys Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 718/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojaria & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Appeal No. Appellant Respondent Year M/S. Infosys Ltd., The Assistant Electronic City, Commissioner It(Tp)A No. Hosur Road, Of Income Tax, 2012-13 718/Bang/2017 Bangalore – 560 Circle – 100. 3(1)(1), Pan: Bangalore. Aaaci4798L : Shri Padamchand Khincha, Assessee By Ca : Shri K.V. Arvind & Shri Dilip, Revenue By Standing Counsels For Dept. Date Of Hearing : 15-09-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-11-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Arises Out Of Final Assessment Order Dated 28/02/2017 Passed By The Ld.Acit, Circle – 3(1)(1), Bangalore For A.Y. 2012-13 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: General & Legal Grounds 1. The Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer & The Directions Of Hon’Ble Drp To The Extent Prejudicial To The Appellant Is Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed. Grounds On Denial Of Deduction Claimed Under Section 10Aa In Respect Of 4 Sez Units Viz., Chennai – Unit 1, Chandigarh, Mangalore - Unit 1 & Pune Unit 1 2. The Learned Assessing Officer Has Erred In Denying Deduction Claimed Under Section 10Aa In The Return Of Income Totally Amounting To Rs. 2227,82,65,630 In Respect

Section 10ASection 14ASection 2Section 2(24)Section 40

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBERA AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL

Arya Samaj, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 984/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Arya Samaj, Vs. Ito (Exemptions), Ward - 1, No.804/15, Swamy Shraddhanand Bhavan, Bengaluru. Vishveshvarapuram, Bengaluru – 560 004. Pan : Aacta 0479 K Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Sudheendra B. R, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel Date Of Hearing : 24.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.11.2022 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. Sudheendra B. R, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel

Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 12A(2)Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 234F

charitable purposes in India during the previous year – Revenue Account 26,30,538-00 vii. Total (4i) 26,30,538-00 16. Gross total income NIL” 3. The return was processed and an intimation u/s. 143(1) of the Act dated 30.09.2019 was passed by DCIT, CPC with reference ... India during the previous year – Revenue Account IT(TP)A No.984/Bang/2022 Page 3 of 7 4 Total 26,30,538-00 -- 5 Gross Total Income (1 + 2 – 5) NIL 26,30,538-00 6 Aggregate Tax Liability

M/S Mhm Holdings Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Range-12, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 372/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S.M/S. Mhm Holding Pvt. Ltd. Vs Acit, Range - 12 Bengaluru No. 52, Bassappa Road Shantinagar Bengaluru 560027 Pan – Aabcm6614L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Parthasarathi, Adv. Revenue By: Shri K.R. Narayana, Addl Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 23/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 25/11/2022 O R D E R Per: Padmavathy, A.M.

For Appellant: Shri Parthasarathi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayana, Addl CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 40Section 50B

business of manufacturing of IT & HT capacitors for Energy Saving Devices. The assessee filed the original return of income on 22.09.2009 declaring gross total income of Rs.95,50,29,755/-. Later the assessee filed revised return on 31.03.2011 declaring gross total income of Rs.95,26,44,624/-. The case

The Thanjavur District Co Op Milk Producers Union Limited, Thanjavur vs. ACIT, Circle2(1), Trichy

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Allowed

ITA 404/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.404/Chny/2022 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 The Thanjavur District Co Op The Principal Milk Producers Union Limited, Vs Commissioner Of Income No.1, Nanjikottai Road, Tax-1, Madurai. Thanjavur – 613006. Pan: Aaaat 0224 E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By K.Meenakshisundaram - Itp Revenue By Shri M.Rajan – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 23/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 21/11/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Appellant Assessee Against The Order U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act (Act) Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Madurai-1, Dated 26/03/2022 For A.Y. 2017-18. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Order Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act Dated 26/3/2022 Received By The Appellant On 1/4/2022 Is Objected To On The Following Grounds Of Appeal. 1. The Learned Principal Commissioner Madurai Erred In Setting Aside The Valid Order Passed By The Assisstant Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle-2(1) Trichy Dated 5/11/2019 For The Assessment Year 2017- 2018 Under Section 263 On Mere Assumptions & Presumptions That The Order Had Been Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue. 2. The Learned Principal Commissioner Misdirected Himself That The Valid Order Passed By The Assisstant Commissioner Was Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue Simply For The Reason That The

Section 263Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(2)(e)

facts of the case, the provisions of the law and the material information available on records. The assessee had admitted a gross total income of Rs.79,37,939/- and claimed the entire income as deduction u/s 80P(2).Further verification of the records shows that assessee has invested the society ... totaling to Rs.85,78,967/- and claimed deduction of Rs.79,90,741/- u/s 80(p)(2)(d) and restricted the same to gross total income of Rs.79,37,939/-. I have perused the written submission made by the assessee quoting various judgments. Whereas the Income Tax Act is very clear

Tikona Trust, Mumbai vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangaluru

In the result of the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1117/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.1117/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Tikona Trust बिधम/ Assistant Director Of 3A, 3Rd Floor Corpora, Lbs Marg Income Tax, Cpc Vs. Bhandup West, Cpc, Bangaluru, Mumbai-400078 Karnataka- 560500

For Appellant: Shri .Vimal PunamiyaFor Respondent: Shri. V.K. Chaturvedi, Sr AR

Section 139(1)Section 139(3)Section 234BSection 41Section 41(1)

forward losses of the earlier years, it claimed set off the losses of earlier years against current year’s income and accordingly, the gross total income of the assessee was claimed to be Rs. Nil. 6. However, the AO/CPC noticed that the returns of income of the earlier years have

ITO-28(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Shri Kulswami Co-Op Credit Society Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 985/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 40Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(4)

declaring total income of INR 5,64,980 after claiming a deduction of INR 3,54,46,623 under section 80P from the gross total income of INR 3,60,11,604. The Assessing Officer vide order dated 26/04/2021 passed under section 143(3) r/w section 144B

DCIT, Chennai vs. B.V.Reddy Enterprises Pvt Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1914/CHNY/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1914/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. B.V. Reddy Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, New No. 21/Old No. 10A, First Floor, Corporate Circle 1(2), Umayal Road, Kilpauk, Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 010. [Pan:Aaccn2252L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Johnson, Addl. Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 15.09.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 04.11.2022 : आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Chennai, Dated 29.03.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. Facts Are, In Brief, That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2010-11 On 13.10.2010 Admitting Total Income Of ₹.15,50,25,060/-. The Assessing Officer Has Completed The Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] Dated

For Appellant: Shri G. Johnson, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate

Section 14Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

returned): 2,24,07,388 Less: Short term capital loss b/f from A.Y. 09-10 : 1,62,91,313 61,16,075 Gross Total Income 20,79,06,183 Less: Deduction u/g 80G (as per return) 78,37,315 TAXABLE INCOME 20,00,68,868 As against this, total income

M/S Jal Ratan Deep Co-Operative Housing Society, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 31(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 2351/MUM/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Nov 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh ()

Section 1Section 115JSection 143Section 250Section 80Section 80P(2)(d)

adjudication of the issue before us. "80P(2)(d) (1). Where in the case of an assessee being a co-operative society, the gross total income includes any income referred to in sub-section (2), there shall be deducted, in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this section