“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

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

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2553/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

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

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2733/MUM/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jul 2022AY 2004-05

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

Tata Chemicals Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2440/MUM/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jul 2022AY 2004-05

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

ACIT-24(1), Mumbai vs. M/S.Atul Properties, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of revenue are dismissed

ITA 4394/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 4393 & 4394/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years:2010-11 & 2011-12) Acit-24(1) बिधम/ M/S. Atul Properties Room No.604, Piramal 501-502, Trade Avenue, Off Vs. Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel, Suren Road, Western Express Mumbai-400012. Highway, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400093. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aamfa3756F (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Damor (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Naresh Jain/Mahaveer Jain & Ms. Carmi Shroff सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 13/05/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/06/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeal Preferred By Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-36, Mumbai Dated 29.12.2017 For A.Y.2010-11 & 2011- 12 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri Naresh Jain/Mahaveer Jain &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Damor (DR)

Section 80Section 801B(10)

clearer understanding of the provisions of the Section, 80-IB(10) the same are re-produced hereunder: 80-IB. (1) Where the gross total income of an assessee includes any profits and gains derived from any business referred to in sub-sections (3) @ ((11), (LIA) and (11B)j (such business

ACIT-24(1), Mumbai vs. M/S.Atul Properties, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of revenue are dismissed

ITA 4393/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Naresh Jain/Mahaveer Jain &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Damor (DR)

Section 80Section 801B(10)

M/S. Bhavana Co-Operative Credit Society Niyamita, Sirsi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Sirsi

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

ITA 738/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri V Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, Addl. CIT

Section 801PSection 80P

income of the assessee after deducting Rs.3,25,451/- u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) and Rs.6,58,376/- u/s 80P(2)(d) from Gross total income of Rs.32,56,379/- and completed the assessment. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee challenged the assessment order before the CIT, who confirmed the order

Texas Instruments (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Ltu, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the revenue is dismissed and the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 852/BANG/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri. Percy Pardiwala, Sr. CounselFor Respondent: Shri. Sanjay Kumar S. K, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40Section 80JSection 92C

total income of Rs 829,619,519. In computing the above income, it claimed a deduction of Rs 77,851,741 from its gross total income as per the provisions of section 80JJAA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ["the Act"]. 4. Notices under section 143(2) and section ... applicable for AY 2008-09 reads as follows: "80JJAA. Deduction in respect of employment of new workmen.—(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 or production of article or thing

Joint Commisioner of Income Tax (Ltu), Bangalore vs. M/S Texas Instruments India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the revenue is dismissed and the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 831/BANG/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri. Percy Pardiwala, Sr. CounselFor Respondent: Shri. Sanjay Kumar S. K, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40Section 80JSection 92C

The Sarvoday Co.Op. Credit Soc. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO WD- 26(3)(6) Now Assessed With ITO, WD 26(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 292/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Sarvoday Co-Operative Credit Income Tax Officer, Society Ltd., Ward 26(3)(6), 19, Shiv Shopping Centre, Shivaji Vs. 315, 3Rd Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, Talao, Sardar Pratap Singh Marg, C-41 To C-43, G Block, Bkc, Bhandup (W), Bandra (E), Mumbai-400078. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaaat 9173 A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Kumar Kale, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Kiran P. Unavekar, DR

Section 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(d)

gross operative society and is liable to be deducted from the gross operative society and is liable to be deducted from the gross total income under Sect total income under Section 80P of the Act. 9. In this context when we look at the judgment of the Apex

El Cid Co .Op.Hsg. Soc. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO, WD 19(1)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 2266/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Mr. Pravin Chedda, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Samruddhi Hande, DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 234CSection 5(1)Section 80P(2)(d)

contention of the learned counsel for the assessee misses two essential points required for claiming the exemption or 100% deduction from gross total income for a co-operative society: (i) that the character or nature of income, namely interest on investments or deposits, does not change irrespective of the fact ... 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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1)(2), Bangalore vs. M/S. Bangalore International Airport Limited, Bangalore

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, whereas the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 374/BANG/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 80Section 80I

reads as under: ITA No.191 & 374/Bang/2020 Page 9 of 25 80 IA (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 (4) (such business being hereinafter referred ... April, 1993 and ending on the 31st March, 2017.” 10. Thus Section 80-IA(1) states that 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 (4), which includes the business

M/S. Bangalore International Airport Limited, Bangalore vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 1, Bangalore

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, whereas the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 191/BANG/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 80Section 80I

M/S. Biocon Limited, Bengaluru vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Ltu, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed on the legal issue raised in ground no

ITA 1858/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2010-11 The Joint M/S. Biocon Ltd., Commissioner Of 20Th Km, Hosur Road, Income-Tax, Electronic City, Large Tax Payers Bangalore – 560 100. Unit [Ltu], Pan: Aaacb7461R Vs. Bangalore. Appellant Respondent : Shri Padam Chand Khincha, Assessee By Ca Revenue By : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 20-04-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 09-06-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 28.03.2018 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-3, Bangalore For A.Y. 2010-11 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Mentioned Herein Below Are Independent & Without Prejudice To The Other Grounds Preferred By The Appellant. 1. That On Facts & Circumstances Of The ' Case & In Law, The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax Appeals ["Cit(A)"] Dated March 28, 2018 Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act") For Ay 2010-11 To The Extent Prejudicial To The Appellant, Is Bad In Law & Facts & Liable To Be Quashed. 2. Scope Of Re-Assessment Proceedings

For Respondent: Shri Padam Chand Khincha

Section 147Section 250Section 35

assessee claimed foreign tax credit of Rs.42,61,934/-. The Ld.AO completed the assessment u/s. 143(3) vide order dated 23.05.2014 computing gross total income of Rs. 72,78,61,570/-. The Ld.AO in the original assessment order disallowed Rs.27,95,73,000/- as notional foreign exchange loss. Subsequently

Inventurus Knowledge Solutions Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. PCIT, Mumbai 6

ITA 246/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman आअसं.246/मुं/2022 ("न.व. 2016-17) Inventurus Knowledge Solutions Pvt. Ltd. 801, Mindspace Business Park Pvt. Ltd., Building No.5 & 6, Thane Belapur Road, Airoli East, Navi Mumbai – 400 708. Pan: Aabci-5573-J ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Pcit,Mumbai -6 Circle 15(1)(2) Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri S.C.Tiwari, Advocate ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Jayant Jhaveri सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 09/03/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 03/06/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri S.C.Tiwari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Jayant Jhaveri

Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

assessment order with respect to assessee’s claim under section 10AA of the Act. From the details given in Form No.56F the gross total income of the undertaking cannot be determined. 4 4.1 The ld.Departmental Representative referring to para 17 of the decision in the case of CIT vs. Yokogawa ... India Ltd.(supra) asserted that the deduction is claimed on the gross total income. However, in the instant case the Assessing Officer has not determined gross total income on which deduction under section 10AA is to be computed. Hence, the PCIT has rightly exercised jurisdiction under section

Hewlett-Packard Globalsoft Private Limtied, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 835/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

order, by holding that though Section 10A, as amended, is a provision for deduction, the stage of deduction would be while computing the gross total income of the eligible undertaking under Chapter IV of the Act and not at the stage of computation of the total income under Chapter

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Hewlett Packard Globalsoft Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 810/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Mr. Bhavnesh Rajendra Singhi, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 18(1) (2), Mumbai

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

ITA 242/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Mr. Bhavesh Rajendra Singhi C/O Income Tax Officer Sanket Shah, Ward 18(1)(2), Flat 1902, 19Th Floor, Vs. Matru Mandir Building, Olympia Tower A Wing, Grant Road, N.M. Joshi Marg, Byculla (West), Mumbai-400 007. Mumbai-400011. Pan No. Aqops 9227 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Suyog Bhave, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Kiran P. Unavekar, Dr Date Of Hearing : 31/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/05/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Suyog Bhave, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Kiran P. Unavekar, DR

Section 139(5)Section 35ASection 80GSection 80G(1)(ii)Section 80G(2)Section 80G(5)(vi)

facts and in the circumstances of the case,the Ld. CIT(A) erred in restricting the deduction to 10 percent of Gross Total Income in respect of the donations made by the Appellant to M/s. Sahara Health & Education Society. 1.3. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have allowed deduction ... opined that the assessee was entitled to claim of deduction u/s 80G(5)(vi) of the Act to the extent of 10% of gross total income rather than the entire amount of donation paid of ₹9,00,000/-. On being proposed to restrict the deduction u/s 80G to the extent

Siddhagiri Gurukul Foundation, Mumbai vs. CIT (Exemption), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 625/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm The Cit (Exemption) Siddhagiri Gurukul Foundation Room No. 617, 6Th Floor, Siddharameshwar Mandir, Jayrameshwar Co-Op Hsg. Soc., Piramal Chambers, Vs. S.V. Road, Goregaon, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai-400 062 Mumbai-400 012 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacts0759G

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Sanghvi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ajit K. Shrivastava, CIT DR

Section 11Section 11(6)Section 12Section 143Section 24Section 263

However while preparing the computation sheet, the voluntary contribution of ₹ 5,369,864/– was also included in the gross total income thus determining the gross income at ₹ 86,005,904/–. Along with the assessment order computation sheet of total income was also given. The difference between these two is tabulated

Sea Flama(Dosti Flamingos) Chs Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (E) -1 (1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

ITA 2317/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2022AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Kishor P. ChoudhariFor Respondent: Shri Avinash Tiwari

Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

society by way of interest or dividend from its investments with other coop society if such income is included in the gross total income of such coop society. In view these facts and circumstances we are of the considered view that the assessee is entitled to the deduction ... 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

The Karnataka Bank Ltd, Mangaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Mangaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1907/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranthe Karnataka Bank Ltd. Dcit, Circle - 2(1) Head Office, Mahaveera Circle Mangalore Vs. Kankanady Mangalore 575002 Pan – Aabct5589K Appellant Respondent Dcit, Circle – 2(1) The Karnataka Bank Ltd. Mangalore Head Office, Mahaveera Circle Vs. Kankanady Mangalore 575002 Pan – Aabct5589K Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri S. Ananthan, Ca & Smt. Lalitha Rameswaran, Ca Revenue By: Shri Mudavathu Harish Chandra Naik, Ca Date Of Hearing: 22.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.05.2022 O R D E R Per: B.R. Baskaran, A.M. These Cross Appeals Are Directed Against The Order Dated 27-03-2018 Passed By Ld Cit(A), Mangaluru & They Relate To The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Is A Banking Company Carrying On Banking Business. The Karnataka Bank Ltd.

For Appellant: Shri S. Ananthan, CA &For Respondent: Shri Mudavathu Harish

Section 14A

deduction for provision for bad and doubtful debts for certain banks (not incorporated outside India) and certain cooperative banks to 7.5% of gross total income (before deduction under this clause) of such banks and 10% of the aggregate average advance made by the rural branches of such banks. This limit ... gross total income (before deduction under this clause) under sections 36(1)(viia)(b) and 36(1)(viia)(c) for a bank incorporated outside India and certain financial institutions. Provisions of clause (vii) of section 36(1) of the Act provides for deduction for bad debt actually written