“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

Regency Meadows Co-Perative Housing Limited, Pune vs. ITO Ward 7(3), Pune

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

ITA 1008/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1008/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Date of hearing

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

perused the record placed before us. We observe that the assessee is a Cooperative Regency Meadows Coop. Housing Limited Housing Society and declared gross total income of Rs.15,65,984/- in the e-return for A.Y. 2015-16 filed on 10.02.2016 and after claiming deduction u/s.80P

Nitesh Kumar, Hazaribagh, Ranchi vs. A.C.I.T., Ward - 3(1), Malda

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

ITA 495/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Jun 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey&Shri Rakesh Mishra]

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 69ASection 80T

import export zone firm & Income from other sources Rs. 3,03,424/- Unexplained money u/s 69A (as discussed) Rs. 1,16,15,600/- Gross total income Rs. 1,58,71,437/- Less: Deduction u/s 80TTA Rs. 4,947/- Total income Rs. 1,58,66,437/- 4. Aggrieved by the said

A.K. Capital Services Limited, Mumbai vs. PCIT, Mumbai

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

ITA 2959/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, () & Shri Prabhash Shankar, ()

Section 142Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80G

suns on which deduction shall be allowed to the assessee. Section 80G falls in Chapter VIA, which comes into play only after the gross total income has been computed by applying the computation provisions under various heads of income, including the Explanation 2 to section ... suns on which deduction shall be allowed to the assessee. Section 80G falls in Chapter VIA, which comes into play only after the gross total income has been computed by applying the computation provisions under various heads of income, including the Explanation 2 to section

Axis Finance Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT 6(1)2, Mumbai

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

ITA 2922/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankaraxis Finance Limited, V/S. Deputy Commissioner Of Ground Floor Axis House, C-2 बनाम Income Tax– 6(1)(2), Wadia, International Center, Aayakar Bhawan, Mumbai P.B. Marg Worli, Prabhadevi, –400020, Maharashtra Mumbai–400 025, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaack3010F Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal,ARFor Respondent: Shri Aditya Rai (Sr. DR)

Section 135Section 143(3)Section 37Section 45Section 80G

Employees Retirement System of Texas, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT (Int. Tax)-2(2)(1), Mumbai

The appeals are partly allowed

ITA 2155/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Anish ThackarFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 70Section 70(2)

against the short- term capital gains of the year under consideration. Errors in computation sheet appended with order. 7. Erred in erroneously considering gross total income at INR 7,204,551,726 in the computation sheet as against assessed income of INR 4,039,645,670 as per the Final

Fidelity Salem Street Trust Fidelity Sai Emerging Markets Index Fund, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation)-2(3)(1), Mumbai

The appeals are partly allowed

ITA 2126/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Anish ThackarFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 70Section 70(2)

The Kalakkodu Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd No.1194, Kollam vs. ITO, Ward 2, Kollam

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and both the connected stay applications are dismissed

ITA 22/COCH/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

For Appellant: Shri Sabu C S, CAFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan IRS, CIT DR and Smt

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

compliance in response to the said notices before the Assessing Officer. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer viewed that the assessee declared gross total income of Rs.9641225/- and taxable income as Nil after claiming deduction under Chapter VIA of section 80P(2) and income of the assessee was assessed

The Kalakkodu Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd No.1194, Kollam vs. ITO, Ward 2, Kollam

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and both the connected stay applications are dismissed

ITA 21/COCH/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

For Appellant: Shri Sabu C S, CAFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan IRS, CIT DR and Smt

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

Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Udupi, Uupi vs. Kambadakone Rytara Seva Sahakari Sangha Ltd, Udupi

ITA 1930/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

Section 194A(3)Section 250Section 28Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

business with any non- members. The assessee society filed its return of income on 6.9.2017 for the assessment year 2017-18 declaring gross total income of Rs.2,79,94,566/- and returned total income of Rs.nil after claiming entire income of Rs.2,79,94,566/- as deduction ... operative societies amounting to Rs.2,81,04,247/- should be treated as income from other sources and in such a situation the Gross Total Income becomes a negative figure and thus the assessee is not eligible to get any deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. Further

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Udupi vs. Kambadakone Rytara Seva Sahakari Sangha Ltd, Uppunda

ITA 1929/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Mahesh R Uppin, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, D.R

Section 194A(3)(v)Section 250Section 28Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

Jagruti Co Op Hsg Soc Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward (197)(6), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 372/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Jagruti Co Op Hsg Soc Ito Ward –(197)(6) Ltd. Cpc Bangaluru, L.J. Road Mahim, Vs. 560500. Mumbai-400016. Pan: Aaaat9842L (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Pratik Jain, Ld. A.R. Revenue By : Shri Kavan Limbasiya, Ld. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 12.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.06.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 19.11.2024, Impugned Herein, Passed By The Addl/Jcit (A) (In Short Ld. Addl/Joint Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2014-15. 2. In This Case, The Intimation/Order U/S. 143(1) Of The Act Was Issued On Dated 20.05.2015 By The Ito Ward-(197) (6) Mumbai, Whereby The Deduction Claimed By The Assessee U/S. 80(2)(D) Of The Act Amounting To Rs. 7,36,459/- Earned On Its Investment & Saving Bank Account Maintained With Saraswat Co-Operative Bank & The Nkgsb Co-Operative Bank Was Disallowed. The Assessee Against The Said Intimation Dated 20.05.2015 Filed A Rectification Application U/S. 154 Of The Act, However, No Order For Rectification Has Ever Been Passed By The Cpc. The Assessee On Realizing Its 2 M/S. Jagruti Co Op Hsg Soc Ltd. Mistake Challenged The Said Intimation U/S. 143(1) Dated 25.05.2025 By Filing First Appeal On Dated 12.06.2024 But With The Delay Of More Than 9 Years. The Ld. Addl/Joint Commissioner By Considering The Peculiar Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Ultimately Declined To Entertain The Request For Condonation Of Delay & Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee In Limine Without Making Any Discussion On Merit Or On Any Other Aspect.

For Appellant: Shri Pratik Jain, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Kavan Limbasiya, Ld. D.R

Section 14Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 80(2)(d)Section 80P(2)(d)

Housing Society. Thus, if any income as referred to in sub-section (2) to section 80P of the Act is included in the gross total income of the Assessee, the same shall be allowed as a deduction. It is pertinent to note that since the Assessee is registered under

Jsw Steel Employees Welfare Trust, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2880/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi, A/RFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik, Sr. D/R

Section 10(34)Section 115JSection 14ASection 234BSection 234C

Loss to be carried forward III. INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES Dividend Less: Exempt u/s 10(34) r.w.s.115BBDA Taxable Dividend Income from Other Sources Gross Total Income: Total Income: Total Income Round off: Notes: 1. Long Term capital Gains to be Carry Forward Assessment Year Amount

Sagar Tech Plaza A Premises Co-Op Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Department, Bandra Mumbai

In the result, the Assessee’s appeals are allowed

ITA 2687/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2019-20 & Assessment Year: 2022-23

For Appellant: Shri Virat Doshi, Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Kavan Limbasiya, Ld. Sr.D.R

Section 2(19)Section 250Section 80(2)(d)Section 80PSection 80P(1)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

Housing Society. Thus, if any income as referred to in sub-section (2) to section 80P of the Act is included in the gross total income of the assessee, the same shall be allowed as a deduction. It is pertinent to note that since the assessee is registered under

Sagar Tech Plaza A Premises Co Op Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Department, Bandra Mumbai

In the result, the Assessee’s appeals are allowed

ITA 2686/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2019-20 & Assessment Year: 2022-23

For Appellant: Shri Virat Doshi, Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Kavan Limbasiya, Ld. Sr.D.R

Section 2(19)Section 250Section 80(2)(d)Section 80PSection 80P(1)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

Mahansaria Enterprises Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT, Mumbai-5, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2158/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Rahul Chaudharyassessment Year : 2020-21 Mahansaria Enterprises Private The Principal Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax (Pcit), 301-304, 3Rd Floor, Vs. Room No. 515, 5Th Floor, Peninsula Chambers, Aayakar Bhavan, Peninsula Corporate Park, Maharshi Karve Road, G.K. Marg, Lower Parel West, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400026 Pan : Aaacy1568L (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Vipul Joshi, Adv. & Prashant Bhumare For Revenue : Shri Satyaprakash R. Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 14-05-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 11-06-2025 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai-5 [„Ld.Pcit‟] U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 („The Act‟), Dated 17-03-2025, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2020-21, Wherein The Assessee Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Joshi, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Satyaprakash R. Singh, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37(1)Section 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 ie. 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