← 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

DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Surat vs. Bardoli Vibhag Gram Vikas Co Op Credit Society Ltd, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 314/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 194A(3)(v)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(1)Section 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

declaring total income at Rs. Nil after claiming deduction under Chapter VIA of Rs.12,89,22,780/- from the gross total income of Rs.3,34,54,274/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS. The AO issued notices

Shri Sainath Sevabhavi Sanstha, Latur vs. ITO, Exemption Ward, Nanded

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

ITA 1319/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1319/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Sainath Sevabhavi Vs. Ito, Exemption Ward, Sanstha, Nanded. Akharwai, Harangul Bk, Latur, Harangai Bk, B.O., Latur- 413531. Pan : Aakts9324H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sarang Gudhate Revenue By : Shri Akhilesh Srivastva Date Of Hearing : 30.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.08.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30.04.2025 Passed By Ld. Addl./Jcit(A)-7, Delhi [‘Ld. Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “(Without Prejudice To Each Other) 1. Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Has Erred In Not Condoning The Delay In Filing Of Appeal. 2. Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Ld Cit(A)/Nfac Has Erred In Denying The Expenditure Incurred & Treating The Gross Receipts As Income In Intimation U/S 143(1).

For Appellant: Shri Sarang GudhateFor Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastva
Section 119(2)(b)Section 143(1)Section 154

expenses of Rs.73,17,696/- were shown resulting in net surplus of Rs.1,91,045/-. CPC processed the return on 14.03.2015 determining gross total income of Rs.75,08,740/- treating gross receipt as income and rejecting the claim of expenses of Rs.73,17,696/-. Against the above intimation, the assessee

The Musiri Taluk Agricultural Co-Op. Mktg. Society Ltd., Tiruchirappalli vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Trichy

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

ITA 785/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.785/Chny/2025 िनधा9रण वष9 /Assessment Year: 2015-16

For Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jt. CIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

completed at total income of Rs Nil after allowing deduction u/s. 80P of the Act up to gross total income of Rs. 14,41,757/-. The A.O in the assessment order has noted that the assessee is eligible for deduction ... deduction u/s. 80P(2)(d) of the Act of Rs. 2,30,963/- , however restricted the deduction to gross total income . Subsequently , the A.O has reopened the assessment and made disallowance of interest income of Rs. 2,30,963/- claimed u/s. 80P(2)(d) of the Act and restricted

Jila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit Balaghat, Balaghat vs. Income Tax Officer, Chhindwara

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 50/JAB/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur21 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri, Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2016-17 Jila Sahakari Kendriya Bank V. Income Tax Officer Maryadit Chhindwara-480001. Near Kali Putli Chowk, Madhya Pradesh-481001. Tan/Pan:Aaaaj0474A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Jila Sahakari Kendriya Bank V. Assessing Officer, Nfac, Maryadit Delhi Near Kali Putli Chowk, Madhya Income Tax Officer, Pradesh-481001. Circle Chhindwara-480001. Tan/Pan:Aaaaj0474A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Pankaj Shah, Ca Respondent By: Shri Alok Bhura, Sr. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 19 08 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 21 08 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Alok Bhura, Sr. CIT(DR)

confirming the addition of Rs. 97,39,910/- made by the AO on the ground of difference in the computation of income and gross total income in ITR without properly appreciating the factual matrix of the case. The Appellant prays that the said addition be directed to be deleted ... erred in confirming the addition of Rs.18910474 made by the AO on the ground of difference in the computation of income and gross total income in ITR without properly appreciating the factual matrix of the case. The Appellant prays that the said addition be directed to be deleted

Jila Sahakari Kendiya Bank Maryadit, Balaghat vs. Income Tax Officer, Circle Chhindwara, Chhindwara

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 137/JAB/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur21 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri, Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2016-17 Jila Sahakari Kendriya Bank V. Income Tax Officer Maryadit Chhindwara-480001. Near Kali Putli Chowk, Madhya Pradesh-481001. Tan/Pan:Aaaaj0474A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Jila Sahakari Kendriya Bank V. Assessing Officer, Nfac, Maryadit Delhi Near Kali Putli Chowk, Madhya Income Tax Officer, Pradesh-481001. Circle Chhindwara-480001. Tan/Pan:Aaaaj0474A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Pankaj Shah, Ca Respondent By: Shri Alok Bhura, Sr. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 19 08 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 21 08 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Alok Bhura, Sr. CIT(DR)

confirming the addition of Rs. 97,39,910/- made by the AO on the ground of difference in the computation of income and gross total income in ITR without properly appreciating the factual matrix of the case. The Appellant prays that the said addition be directed to be deleted ... erred in confirming the addition of Rs.18910474 made by the AO on the ground of difference in the computation of income and gross total income in ITR without properly appreciating the factual matrix of the case. The Appellant prays that the said addition be directed to be deleted

Weld Fuse Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-8(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 277/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.277/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2017-18) M/S. Weld Fuse Pvt. Ltd., Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. Circle 8(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan:Aaacw2119H (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 06/08/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 20/08/2025

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Dr. Sachin Kumar, SR-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80Section 80I

action of the A.O in appropriating head office expenses of Rs. 45,56,979/- toward WTG business and in arriving at the gross total income eligible for deduction u/s 80IA at Rs. 1,57,16,935/- as against Rs. 2,02,73,914/-. 3) Any other ground/grounds that

Singh Trading Company, Chennai vs. ACIT, Ncc-7(1), Chennai

ITA 943/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 44ASection 69C

Hence, the Bill of Entry for imports is not unexplained expenditure u/s.69C of the Act. The assessee had explained that for A.Y.2015-16, the gross total income that was offered to tax was Rs.33,33,071/-, for A.Y.2016-17, it was Rs.20,63,200/-, for A.Y.2017-18, it was Rs.21,55,900/-. However

Singh Trading Company, Chennai vs. ACIT, Ncc-7(1), Chennai

ITA 942/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 44ASection 69C

Hence, the Bill of Entry for imports is not unexplained expenditure u/s.69C of the Act. The assessee had explained that for A.Y.2015-16, the gross total income that was offered to tax was Rs.33,33,071/-, for A.Y.2016-17, it was Rs.20,63,200/-, for A.Y.2017-18, it was Rs.21,55,900/-. However

Singh Trading Company, Chennai vs. ACIT, Ncc-7(1), Chennai

ITA 941/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 44ASection 69C

Hence, the Bill of Entry for imports is not unexplained expenditure u/s.69C of the Act. The assessee had explained that for A.Y.2015-16, the gross total income that was offered to tax was Rs.33,33,071/-, for A.Y.2016-17, it was Rs.20,63,200/-, for A.Y.2017-18, it was Rs.21,55,900/-. However

Hemani Industires Limited, Mumbai vs. PCIT-6, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed, in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 2963/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2963/Mum/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2020-21 Hemani Industries Limited C-701-703, 7Th Floor, Neelkanth Business Park, R.N Road, Vidyavihar (West) Mumbai-400 086 Pan : Aaach1117Q

For Appellant: Shri Malav P. Sheth, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 263Section 80G

that the contribution should be voluntary and that the CSR spend is an application of income which is eligible for deduction from the gross total income of the assessee as per the provisions of section 80G. 6. The word "donation" has not been defined under the Act. However ... under the provision of Section 28-44DB whereas the deduction under section 80G is claimed under Chapter VIA i.e. after computing the Gross Total Income. The provisions of section 80G does not impose any condition that the contribution should be voluntary and therefore when the CSR spend is evaluated

M/S Allahdad Tannery, Kanpur vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Kanpur

ITA 620/LKW/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow20 Aug 2025AY 2004-05
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 801BSection 80HSection 80ISection 8O

reducing the amount of profit and gains allowed as a deduction under Section 80-IA(1) of the Act. In other words, the gross total income eligible for deduction under Section 80-HHC would be less or reduced by the deduction already allowed under Section 80-IA. Thus, the gross ... total income eligible for deduction would not be the gross total income as defined in sub- section (5) of Section 80-B read with Section 80-B, but would be the gross total income computed under sub-section (5) of Section 80- B read with Section 80-AB less

Co-Operative Electric Supply Society Ltd., Karimnagar vs. DCIT., Circle-1, Karimnagar

ITA 478/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Us:

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(va)

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

Co-Operative Electric Supply Society Ltd., Siricilla vs. DCIT., Circle-1, Karimnagar

ITA 411/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Us:

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(va)

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 Pursottam Farmers Co.Op. Cotton Ginning & Pressing Society Ltd., Surat vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ciracle-2(2), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed, whereas the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 523/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.499/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Dcit, Vs. The Pursottam Farmers Co-Op. Circle – 2(1)(1), Cotton Grnning & Pressing Soc. Surat Ltd., Jahangirpura Gin., Jahangirpura, Rander – 395009, "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaat3000A (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.523/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2017-18) The Pursottam Farmers Co-Op. Vs. Dcit, Cotton Grnning & Pressing Soc. Ltd., Circle – 2(1)(1), Jahangirpura Gin., Jahangirpura, Surat Rander – 395009, "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaat3000A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Respondent By Shri Akshay M. Modi, Ca Date Of Hearing 23/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19/08/2025

Section 143(3)Section 194A(3)(v)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(1)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

deductions claimed under Chapter VIA of the Act for the aggregate amount of Rs. 2,65,23,665/- (subject to the availability of Gross Total Income), purely on misinterpretation and misconstruction of the provisions of law, misleading, mis-conceptual, arbitrary and perverse observations and hence, is liable to be quashed ... interest from investments with other co-operative societies for the aggregate amount of Rs.2,32,57,862/- (restricted to the availability of Gross Total Income) and therefore, the CIT (Appeals)'s action confirming the AO's order u/s 143(3) of the Act denying the deduction claimed under Chapter

Dy. Commissoner of Income-Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Surat vs. The Pursottam Farmers Co Op Cotton Grnning and Pressing Society Ltd, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed, whereas the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 499/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.499/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Dcit, Vs. The Pursottam Farmers Co-Op. Circle – 2(1)(1), Cotton Grnning & Pressing Soc. Surat Ltd., Jahangirpura Gin., Jahangirpura, Rander – 395009, "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaat3000A (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.523/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2017-18) The Pursottam Farmers Co-Op. Vs. Dcit, Cotton Grnning & Pressing Soc. Ltd., Circle – 2(1)(1), Jahangirpura Gin., Jahangirpura, Surat Rander – 395009, "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaat3000A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Respondent By Shri Akshay M. Modi, Ca Date Of Hearing 23/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19/08/2025

Section 143(3)Section 194A(3)(v)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(1)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

deductions claimed under Chapter VIA of the Act for the aggregate amount of Rs. 2,65,23,665/- (subject to the availability of Gross Total Income), purely on misinterpretation and misconstruction of the provisions of law, misleading, mis-conceptual, arbitrary and perverse observations and hence, is liable to be quashed ... interest from investments with other co-operative societies for the aggregate amount of Rs.2,32,57,862/- (restricted to the availability of Gross Total Income) and therefore, the CIT (Appeals)'s action confirming the AO's order u/s 143(3) of the Act denying the deduction claimed under Chapter

M/S Gvk Jaipur Expressway Private Limited, Telangana vs. PCIT 2, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 248/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Aug 2025AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 36(1)(iii)Section 80

Sale of Scrap 11,47,206 Income from sale of investment 1,44,75,664 Rs.15,14,34,521 considered separately in computation Gross Total Income Rs.273,90,57,567 8. Deduction u/s 80IA excluding Scrap Rs.244,59,66,041 sales) 9. Assessed Total Income Rs.29,30,91,526 Rounded

Krishna Processors & Industries Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax 4 Mumbai, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed, in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 2877/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2877/Mum/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2020-21 Krishna Processors & Industries Pvt. Ltd. 312, 2Nd Floor, Kalbadevi Road, Mumbai-400 002 (Mh) Pan : Aadck1539Q

For Appellant: Shri Mandar VaidyaFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 135Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 37(1)Section 80GSection 80G(2)

that the contribution should be voluntary and that the CSR spend is an application of income which is eligible for deduction from the gross total income of the assessee as per the provisions of section 80G. 11 Krishna Processors & Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pr. CIT, Mumbai-4 6. The word ... under the provision of Section 28-44DB whereas the deduction under section 80G is claimed under Chapter VIA i.e. after computing the Gross Total Income. The provisions of section 80G does not impose any condition that the contribution should be voluntary and therefore when the CSR spend is evaluated

Income Tax Officer, Jaipur vs. Goenka Jewellers, Jaipur

In the result, Ground No. 2 raised by the revenue is also dismissed

ITA 402/JPR/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Aug 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalito, Ward 2(1), Jaipur ...... Appellant

For Appellant: Mr. Nishit Gandhi, Adv. (thro. VH), Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT, Ld. DR
Section 10ASection 127Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 72Section 74

deduction, though section 10A of the Act, 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 ... deduction. though s. 10A of the Act, 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

Kalkere Puttaraju Vajramunie, Royal Hermitage, Kalkere B.O, Kalkere vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 1(4) Bangalore, Bangalore, Karnataka

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

ITA 902/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Siddesh N Gaddi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Balusamy N, JCIT (DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69B

153A of the Act. However, the assessee during the assessment proceeding furnished statement of . ITA No.901 & 902/Bang/2025 Page 14 of 17 income showing gross total income of Rs. 24,79,352/- consisting of income from house property and other sources and after claiming deduction under chapter

Kalkere Puttaraju Vajramunie, Royal Hermitage, Kalkere B.O, Kalkere vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 1(4) Bangalore, Bangalore, Karnataka

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

ITA 901/BANG/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Siddesh N Gaddi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Balusamy N, JCIT (DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69B

153A of the Act. However, the assessee during the assessment proceeding furnished statement of . ITA No.901 & 902/Bang/2025 Page 14 of 17 income showing gross total income of Rs. 24,79,352/- consisting of income from house property and other sources and after claiming deduction under chapter