“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

M/S. Wipro Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 2556/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore23 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.2556/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri S. Ganesh, Sr. ARFor Respondent: Shri T. Roumuan Paite, D.R

Section 143(3)

carried on by the assessee. Section 10A/10AA/10B, 80IA etc., grants income tax concession by way of granting deduction to certain specified undertakings from gross total income (or) at the point of computation itself, meaning thereby, the same results in income-tax benefit to the assessee. It may so happen that

Hinduja Finance Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, Range -7(1)(2) (Earlier DCIT 6(1)), Mumbai

In the result, this ground of appeal of assessee is dismissed and order of Ld

ITA 7154/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalhinduja Finance Ltd. 171, Hinduja House, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai-400018 Pan: Aagca0533R ...... Appellant Vs. Dy.Cit, Range-7(1)(2) Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Ruturaj Gurjar Respondent By : Sh. B.K. Bagchi, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 25/03/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20/05/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Cit (A)’] Vide Order Dated 05.09.2019 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2010- 11. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. On The Facts & The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming: I) The Disallowance Made U/S.14A Of The Income Tax Act At Rs.7, 06,985/- As Against Disallowance Of Rs.2, 52,536/- As Computed By The Appellant. The Disallowance Made Of Rs.4, 54,449/- May Please Be Deleted.

For Appellant: Sh. Ruturaj GurjarFor Respondent: Sh. B.K. Bagchi, CIT-DR

Section 14Section 14A

that under Explanation to Section 73 of the Income Tax Act, any loss from securities trading cannot be treated as speculation loss when gross total income consists mainly of income from capital gain, interest on securities and income from other sources. Therefore, it is submitted that this loss

Indianoil Skytanking Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 3(1)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 407/BANG/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)Section 80Section 80I

sections of section 80-IA of the Act, which reads as under:- ITA Nos.583/Bang/2019, 299 & 407/Bang/2020 Page 14 of 43 “(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

M/S. Indianoil Skytaking Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 299/BANG/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)Section 80Section 80I

Keshav Gore Smarak Trust, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (CPC), Banglore

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 5037/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2022AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Milin DattaniFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Thakur

Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154

Original Return was processed by Centralised Processing Centre (CPC) and intimation/order, dated 14.01.2016, was issued under Section 143(1) of the Act determining gross total income at INR 17,92,220/- as against „Nil‟ income returned by the Appellant. 4. Being aggrieved, the Appellant preferred an appeal before the then ... Revised Return was processed by CPC and intimation/order, dated 11.10.2016, was issued under Section 143(1) of the Act determining gross total income at INR 18,01,729/- as against „Nil‟ income returned by the Appellant. ITA. No. 5037/Mum/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 8. According to the Appellant, the working

M/S. Zensar Technologies Ltd ( Formerly International Computers (India) Ltd ), Mumbai vs. The CIT -2

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

ITA 4137/MUM/2007[2002-2003]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai17 May 2022AY 2002-2003

Section 10ASection 115JSection 14ASection 263Section 28Section 80H

purpose of computing business profits under the said section. The appellants submit that deduction under section 80HHE is permissible from the Gross Total Income. Once the Gross Total Income is determined the character of the income is lost. It is also submitted that deduction under section 80HHE ... computed the profits eligible for deduction u/s.80HHE of the Act at Rs.7,65,20,042/-. Since, the gross total income of the assessee was only Rs.2,05,57,787/-, the deduction u/s.80HHE of the Act was restricted to the said amount of gross total income. However, while computing the gross

Mr. Jitendra Kumar Nahata, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Circle-6(1)(1) Represented by Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 41/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Smt. Sunaina Bhatia, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Sankarganesh K, JCIT (DR)

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 801ASection 801BSection 80ASection 80I

brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income on 30/12/2017 declaring a gross total income of Rs.1,43,39,512/- and claimed deduction under Chapter IVA u/s 80IA for Rs.36,82,815/- including the deduction u/s 80IA for Rs.35,02,815/- . Later

M/S Nagashettikoppa Chibbalageri Vyavasaya Seva Sahakari Sangha Niyamit, Uttara Kannada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Hubballi

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

ITA 53/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Sri Vishal S Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing counsel for dept

Section 143(2)Section 234BSection 80P(2)(a)

investments. The assessee has filed the returns of income on 24.10.2017 for the assessment year 2017-18 of income tax act, declaring the gross total income of Rs.26,11,631.00 after claiming deduction under chapter VI A amount of Rs.26,11,631.00 declaring total income as nil, subsequently the case ... 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

M/S Indianoil Skytanking Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 583/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)Section 80Section 80I

M/S Yojaka (India) Pvt Ltd, Mangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1), Mangalore

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

ITA 3360/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranita No.3359 & 3360/Bang/2018 Assessment Year : 2010-11 & 2011-12

For Appellant: Smt. M.R. Vanaja, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R

Section 80I

ground that it had undertaken the construction and maintenance of an infrastructure facility. 5.1 Section 80IA(i) reads as under : "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

M/S Yojaka (India) Private Limited, Mangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1), Mangalore

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

ITA 3359/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranita No.3359 & 3360/Bang/2018 Assessment Year : 2010-11 & 2011-12

For Appellant: Smt. M.R. Vanaja, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R

Section 80I

Bhavani Gems P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT -5, Mumbai

Accordingly, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 766/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm Bhavani Gems Private Limited The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Dw–1370, G–Block West Core, Tax–5, Room No. 515, 5Th Floor, Bharat Diamond Bourse, Bandra Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai–400 020 Mumbai–400 051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaecb9471D

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Choksi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Mahesh Akhade, CIT DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

than sale consideration reported in form no. 26QB ii. Tax credit claim in ITR is less than tax credit available in 26AS iii. Gross total income is less than value of foreign remittance sent. Bhavani Gems Pvt. Ltd.; A.Y. 16–17 iv. Mismatch between income/ receipt credited to profit ... sale consideration reported in form number 26QB (ii) tax credit claimed in ITR is less than the tax credit available in 26AS (iii) gross total income is less than the value of foreign remittances sent (iv) mismatch between income/receipt credited to profit and loss account considered Under other heads

Tulsiani Chambers Premises Cooperative Society Ltd, Nariman Point vs. WD 17(3) (4), Mumbai

In the result, the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2459/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Rao &For Respondent: Shri B.K. Bagchi.DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(19)Section 234ASection 234BSection 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(2)(d)

Chambers Premises Cooperative Society Ltd, Mumbai. “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 Khandwala Securities Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir. 4(3)(1), Mumbai

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 1146/MUM/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri V.M. Chavda

Section 143(3)Section 254Section 73

explanation to Section 73 reads as follows: '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

Ansr Global Corporation Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 225/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Apr 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. S. Padmavathyit(Tp)A No.225/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Ansr Global Corporation Pvt. Ltd., Acit, Vs. Ground Floor, Block L1, Circle – 1(1)(1), Manyata Embassy Business Park, Bengaluru. Sez, Outer Ring Road, Nagwara, Bengaluru-560 045. Pan : Aaecn 7296 E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92Section 92(1)Section 92B(1)

stage of computation of total income under chapter VI of the Act as against the stage of computation of gross total income of the undertaking under chapter IV of the Act.  The Learned AO failed to appreciate that the ruling of Hon' ble Supreme Court in the case ... commencement of the exercise to be undertaken under Chapter VI for arriving at the total income of the assessee from the gross total income. The somewhat discordant use of the expression 'total income of the assessee' in section 10A has already been dealt with earlier and in the overall scenario

Hindustan Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO, W-26(1)(5), Mumbai

In the result, these appeals of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5902/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Section 143(1)Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(2)(d)

Society Limited was processed u/s. 143(1) of the IT Act. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS. The assessee has shown Gross Total Income of Rs.7,65,358/- and claimed deduction u/s.80P(2) of the IT Act of Rs.7,65,358/- thereby declaring total income

Mystique Rose Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO -22(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1290/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Siddesh Chaugule (AR)

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

said section deals with deductions in respect of income of co-operative Societies. Section 80P(1), inter alia, states that where the gross total income of a co-operative Society includes any income from one or more specified activities, then such income shall be deducted from the gross total income ... coop 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

Sonmarg Co-Op Housing Society Ltd., Mumbai vs. CIT (A) Faceless Appeal Centre, Mumbai

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 1334/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2022AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Pandit (AR)For Respondent: Shri Nishant Somaiya (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

Nagothane Byapari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Raigarh vs. Pr. CIT-1, Thane

ITA 1011/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Rahul Chaudharyआयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1011/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Nagothane Vyapari Sahakari बिधम/ Principal Commissioner Of Patsanstha Maryadit, Income Tax Vs. Bazerpeth Nagothane, Thane-1 Raigarh - 402106 Pan : Aaaan4367N (अपीलाथी /Appellant) : (प्रत्यथी) / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal (Ar) Revenue By: Shri A.K. Kardam (Cit Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 08.02.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.03.2022

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal (AR)For Respondent: Shri A.K. Kardam (CIT DR)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 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 3(2), Mumbai vs. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 4857/MUM/2009[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopaldy. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Kotak Mahindra Income-Tax, 3(2) Bank Ltd. 36-38A, Room No. 608, 6Th Floor, Nariman Point, Ayakar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400021 Mumbai – 400020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaack4409J Respondent .. Appellant M/S Kotak Mahindra Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Bank Ltd. 36-38A, Income-Tax-3(2) 227 Nariman Point, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400021 Mumbai – 400020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaack4409J Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri F.V. IraniFor Respondent: Shri Jasbir Chouhan

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2Section 3

Heard both the side and perused the material on record. The assessee being a banking company is entitled to bad debt @ 7.5% of gross total income as deduction u/s 36(1)(viia). In addition to this the assessee is also entitled to bad debt on the basis of actually written ... written off were Rs.24,14,97,278/-, therefore, the allowability of provision was in accordance with Section 36(1)(viia) at 7.5% of gross total income. We consider that the bad debt actually written off was at Rs.24,14,97,278/- against opening balance