← All Phrases

“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
82
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
73
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
67
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
47
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
35
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

M/S. Shri Mahishasuramardini Urban Co-Operative Credit Society Limited, Haveri vs. Income Tax Officer, Wrd-1, Haveri

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

ITA 566/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Sri.Vishal S Rao, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Ganesh R.Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 234ASection 234BSection 69ASection 80P(2)(a)

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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-6(2)(1), Bangalore vs. Sri C Gangadhara Murthy, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2400/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuthe Dy. Commissioner Of Vs Shri C. Gangadhara Murthy Income-Tax, No. 322, 3Rd A Corss, 2Nd Block Circle - 6(2)(1) 3Rd Stage, Basaveshwaranagar Bangalore . Bangalore 560079. Pan – Agipg 2668 N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 2

appear. Accordingly the AO completed the assessment under Section 144 of the Act after considering the documents/material available before him and computed the gross total income at Rs.3,73,98,834/- as under: - Income from House property Rs.3,48,933 Income from Business Rs.3,12,000 Add: Income from Other ... bank accounts Rs.1,12,02,680 Add: Unexplained capital accretion Rs.2,50,00,000 Rs.3,67,37,901 Rs.3,73,98,834 Gross total income 4. Aggrieved by the order of the AO the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A) raising many grounds in regard to the legal issue

The Mysore Co-Op. Housing Society Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT-27, Navi Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 730/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singhthe Mysore Co-Op Vs. Pr.Cit-27, Housing Society Ltd, Room No -401, 4 Th Gateno2, Mysore Colony, Floor, Tower-6, Vashi Near Rcf Factory, Railway Station Anik,Off Majul Road, Commercial Complex, Chembur, Vashi,Navi Mumbai- Mumbai-400074 400073. Pan/Gir No. : Aacft7837N Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.M.Subramanian.& Ms.Varsha Nanwani.Ar Respondent By : Mr. Ajay. Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 08.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 10.08.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed An Appeal Against The Order Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Pr.Cit), Mumbai Passed U/S 263 Of The Act Dated 17.03.2021. Mysore Co-Op Housing Society Ltd. Mumbai. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assesse Is A Cooperative Housing Society & Derives Income House Property & Interest From Bank & Provides Credit Facilities To Its Members. The Assessee Has Filed The Return Of Income For The A.Y 2015-16 Electronically On 26.10.2015 Disclosing A Total Income Of Rs.43,08,320/- After Claiming Deduction U/S 80P(2)(D) Of The Act Of Rs.85,80,391/-In Respect Of Interest Income Received On Deposits With Co-Op Banks. The Return Of Income Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Act. Subsequently The Case Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny Through Cass For Verification Of (I)Income From Heads Of Income Other Than Business/Profession Mismatch(Ii)Sales Turnover Mismatch & (Iii) Deduction Under Chapter Vi-A. The Assessing Officer (A.O.) Issued Notice U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act Along With The Questionnaire. In Compliance, The Ld.Ar Of The Assessee Appeared From Time To Time, Produced The Books Of Accounts & Submitted The Relevant Details & Documents & The Case Was Discussed.

For Appellant: Mr.M.Subramanian.&For Respondent: Mr. Ajay. CIT DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 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

DCIT 14(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Blue Berry Trading Co P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3568/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2022AY 2011-12
Section 143(3)Section 73

return of income which was treated as speculation loss by the ld. AO in the assessment proceedings. 3.2. The break-up of gross total income of assessee is as under:- (a) Income from house property - Rs.5,73,65,001/- (b) Income from business and profession (loss)- (Rs.12 ... year for which the loss was first computed. Explanation.—Where any part of the business of a company (other than a company whose gross total income consists mainly of income which is chargeable under the heads "Interest on securities", "Income from house property", "Capital gains" and "Income from other sources

Smt. P Vai Murthy, Hydrabad vs. Dy CIT CC-4(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1544/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: H.K. PandaFor Respondent: Purushottam Tripuri
Section 132Section 144Section 148Section 69Section 69A

Rs.2,58,10,210/- on the basis of 10% of enhanced value of estimated income for AY 2013-14 despite the fact that gross total income reflected in Form 26AS is Rs.12,72,786/-. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case

Shri Pvr Murthy, Hydrabad vs. Dy CIT -CC-4(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1543/MUM/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: H.K. PandaFor Respondent: Purushottam Tripuri
Section 132Section 144Section 148Section 69Section 69A

Rs.2,58,10,210/- on the basis of 10% of enhanced value of estimated income for AY 2013-14 despite the fact that gross total income reflected in Form 26AS is Rs.12,72,786/-. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case

Shri Pvr Murthy, Hydrabad vs. Dy CIT CC-4(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1542/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: H.K. PandaFor Respondent: Purushottam Tripuri
Section 132Section 144Section 148Section 69Section 69A

Rs.2,58,10,210/- on the basis of 10% of enhanced value of estimated income for AY 2013-14 despite the fact that gross total income reflected in Form 26AS is Rs.12,72,786/-. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case

Navjivan Synthetics Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT (A), NFAC Delhi

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 97/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Navjivan Synthetics Cit(A), Pvt. Ltd., Nfac Delhi-110011 158/164, Laxmi Bhavan, Vs. Kalbadevi Road, Kalbadevi, Mumbai- 400 002 Pan: Aaacn137Ok (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Ashish Kumar, D.R.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Kumar, D.R
Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 250Section 43B

statement of the facts and grounds of appeal, the present appeal has been instituted on account of incorrect adoption of gross total income of the Assessee for the present Assessment Year at Rs.3235881/- in place of the correct gross total income of Rs.Nil in order u/s 143(1)(a) dated

ACIT 17(1), Mumbai vs. Mahindra & Mahindra Employees Stock Option Trust, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1120/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2022AY 2016-17
Section 112Section 143(3)Section 250

balance of such short term capital gains shall be computed at the rage of [fifteen] per cent. 2. Where the gross total income of an assessee includes any short- term capital gains referred to in sub-section (1), the deduction under Chapter VI-A shall be allowed from the gross

ACIT-17(1), Mumbai vs. Mahindra & Mahindra Employees Stock Option Trust., Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1119/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2022AY 2013-14
Section 112Section 143(3)Section 250

balance of such short term capital gains shall be computed at the rage of [fifteen] per cent. 2. Where the gross total income of an assessee includes any short- term capital gains referred to in sub-section (1), the deduction under Chapter VI-A shall be allowed from the gross

Teamlease Services Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 530/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Teamlease Services Ltd., The Assistant 6Th Floor, Bmtc Director Of Commercial Complex, Income Tax, 80 Feet Road, Cpc, Koramangala, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 095. Pan: Aabct5458K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None : Shri K.R. Narayana, Addl. Revenue By Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 02-08-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 02-08-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal By The Assessee Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 27/09/2021 U/S. 250 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2018-19 On Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: None
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

business of manpower supply and other related services. For the assessment year 2018-19, return of income was filed on 28/10/2018 declaring gross total income of Rs.70,90,55,020/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the I.T.Act. In the intimation issued u/s 143(1) of the I.T.Act

M/S. Mumbai Kolsa Kamgar Sahakari Society, Mumbai vs. The ITO 17(2) (3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 720/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jul 2022AY 2014-15
Section 80PSection 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 ... Mumbai Kolsa Kamgar Sahakari Society “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

M/S Sap Labs India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed and appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 561/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 561/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Sap Labs India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy No. 138, Export Promotion Commissioner Of Industrial Park, Income Tax, Whitefield, Circle – 6 (1)(1), Bangalore – 560 066. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aafcs3649P Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 437/Bang/2015 (By Revenue) : Shri Aliasgar Rampurawala, Assessee By Ca Revenue By : Shri Arun Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 20-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee As Well As Revenue Against Final Assessment Order Dated 29.01.2015 Passed By The Ld.Dcit, Circle – 6(1)(2), Bangalore For Assessment Year 2010-11 On Following Consolidated Grounds Of Appeal. Assessee’S Appeal: “The Grounds Mentioned Herein By The Appellant Are Without Prejudice To One Another.

For Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar, CIT DR
Section 92D

u/s.80JJA is concerned, a look at sub-section (1) of the said section is required, which is reproduced below : 80JJAA(1) : Where the gross total income of an assessee, being an Indian company, includes any profits and gains derived from any industrial undertaking engaged in the manufacture of production

D.C.I.T., Bangalore vs. M/S Sap Labs India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed and appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 437/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 561/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Sap Labs India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy No. 138, Export Promotion Commissioner Of Industrial Park, Income Tax, Whitefield, Circle – 6 (1)(1), Bangalore – 560 066. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aafcs3649P Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 437/Bang/2015 (By Revenue) : Shri Aliasgar Rampurawala, Assessee By Ca Revenue By : Shri Arun Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 20-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee As Well As Revenue Against Final Assessment Order Dated 29.01.2015 Passed By The Ld.Dcit, Circle – 6(1)(2), Bangalore For Assessment Year 2010-11 On Following Consolidated Grounds Of Appeal. Assessee’S Appeal: “The Grounds Mentioned Herein By The Appellant Are Without Prejudice To One Another.

For Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar, CIT DR
Section 92D

u/s.80JJA is concerned, a look at sub-section (1) of the said section is required, which is reproduced below : 80JJAA(1) : Where the gross total income of an assessee, being an Indian company, includes any profits and gains derived from any industrial undertaking engaged in the manufacture of production

Shri Naveen Shivaprakash Kottigere, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 6(3)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 621/BANG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Mallaha Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni, D.R
Section 143(2)Section 234ASection 271(1)(C)Section 68

years and particularly assessee brought on record the details of gross income declared by assessee in last 3 assessment years as follows:- A.Y. Gross Total income Amount (Rs.) a) 2013-14 Rs.36,01,297/- b) 2014-15 Rs.43,62,805/- c) 2015-16 Rs.32,99,368/- Shri Naveen Shivaprakash Kottigere

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

ITA 984/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita Nos. 984 & 986/Mum/2022 (A.Y. 2017-18 & 2014-15) Ito – 28(3)(1) Vs. M/S Shrikulswamico- Rm No. 316, 3Rd Floor, Op Credit Societyltd., 6Th Tower, Vashi Railway F-3/1, Apmc, Central Station Complex,Vashi Facilitybldg,Sector19, Navi Mumbai, Apmcmarket,Tribhe, Mumbai-400705. Navi Mumbai Mumbai – 400705. Pan/Gir No. : Aaaas2059L Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ms.Ketaki Desai. Dr Respondent By : None Date Of Hearing 21.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 25.07.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: These Are The Two Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of The Cit(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Ms.Ketaki Desai. DRFor Respondent: None
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(4)

986/Mum/2022 M/s Shri Kulswami Co-Op credit Society Ltd., Mumbai. the case was discussed. Whereas,the assessee has disclosed the gross total income of RS. 2,67,25,499/- and claimed deduction u/s 80P of the Act of Rs. 2,64,85,491/- and disclosed the total income

F E Dinshaw Charities, Mumbai vs. ACIT CPC, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 4963/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2022AY 2014-15
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 234BSection 48

nature. In this regard, it is seen from the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act that in Col.9 assessee has shown gross total income at Rs.37,23,228/-. Further, in Col. 10 assessee which is in respect of aggregate of income derived during the previous year

Income Tax Officer-2(2)(3), Mumbai vs. M/S.More Marketing Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4162/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Shailesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishna Kedia
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

income filed by Sunil More for AY 2013-14, (page No. 134 of paper book) it is seen that he has declared gross total income of Rs.22,83,870/- and taxable total income of Rs.21,62,780/- for the year. The AO has in the remand report stated that ... acknowledgement of return of income filed by her for AY 2013-14 (Page No. 157 of paper book), it is seen that the gross total income declared by her is Rs. 10,21,970/- and taxable total income is Rs.9,14,620/- for the said year. She also, as explained

Income Tax Officer-2(2)(3), Mumbai vs. M/S.More Marketing Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4150/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Shailesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishna Kedia
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

income filed by Sunil More for AY 2013-14, (page No. 134 of paper book) it is seen that he has declared gross total income of Rs.22,83,870/- and taxable total income of Rs.21,62,780/- for the year. The AO has in the remand report stated that ... acknowledgement of return of income filed by her for AY 2013-14 (Page No. 157 of paper book), it is seen that the gross total income declared by her is Rs. 10,21,970/- and taxable total income is Rs.9,14,620/- for the said year. She also, as explained

Tata Chemicals Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2692/MUM/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jul 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi a/wFor Respondent: Smt. Somogyan Pal, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 80Section 80HSection 80M

present case. "80-IB Deduction in respect of profits and gains from certain industrial undertakings other than infrastructure development undertakings Where the gross total income of an assessee includes any profits and gains derived from any business referred to in sub-sections (3) to (11), (11A) and (11B) (such business ... Thirteenth Schedule." "80-IC Special provisions in respect of certain undertakings or enterprises in certain special category States (1) Where the gross total income of an assessee includes any profits and gains derived by an undertaking or an enterprise from any business referred to in sub-section (2), there shall