← 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

Shree Jamnagar Jilla Sahakari Kharid Vechan Sangh Limited, Jamnagar vs. DCIT-Cir-2(1), Jamnagar

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 223/RJT/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot16 May 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.223/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Ms. Janvi Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Kumr Gupta, Sr-DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 80P(2)(d)

from Total Income under Chapter VI-A The assessee society has filed Return of Income for AY.2018-19 on 13.08.2018, vide acknowledgment no.108456181130818, reflecting Gross Total Income Rs.43,36,723/- and after claiming deduction u/s 80P(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961 Returned income is declared NIL. The same is processed

Abdulla Kattil Kottur, Palakkad vs. ITO, Ward 1 & Tps, Palakkad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 843/COCH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessmentyear:2017-18 Abdulla Kattil Kottur Mp3/562 Selected Plaza Near Panchayath Mannarkad Ito Vs. Palakkad District Ward-1 & Tps Kerala 678 582 Palakkad Pan No :Azrpa9183C Appellant Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 19.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.05.2025 O R D E R Perkeshav Dubey: This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Cit(A)/Nfac Dated 26.7.2024 Vide Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1067077218(1) For The Ay 2017- 18 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: Abdulla Kattil Kottur, Palakkad Page 2 Of 10 Abdulla Kattil Kottur, Palakkad Page 3 Of 10

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271BSection 273BSection 44ASection 80D

Profession at Rs. 14,81,949/- and Income from Other Sources amounting to Rs. 37,231/- totalling to Rs. 15,19,180/- as Gross Total Income and Rs. 13,55,180/- as Total Income after claiming appropriate deductions u/s 80D and 80C of the Act. The case was selected

Dapodi Workshop Employees Co-Operative Credit Society Limited, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 8(1), Pune

ITA 824/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.824/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Dapodi Workshop Employees V The Income Tax Officer, Co-Operative Credit Society S Ward-8(1), Pune. Limited, Jasampada Building, Dapodi, Pune – 411012. Maharashtra. Pan: Aaaad5605M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Arpit Dnyandeo Dambhare – Ca Revenue By Shri Madhan Thirmanpalli – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 14/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16/05/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; Dated 06.12.2024 For Assessment Year 2020-21. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

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

operative Credit Society engaged in the business of providing credit facility to its members. Assessee filed Return of Income for A.Y.2020-21 showing Gross Total Income of Rs.39,43,019/- and total income of Rs.Nil after claiming deduction of Rs.39,43,019/- under section 80P of the Income

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Cognizant Technology Solutions India Private Limited, Chennai

ITA 1266/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 10ASection 144ASection 14ASection 40Section 9(1)

eligible units u/s.10A/10AA against the profits of other units without appreciating that the issue, whether the stage of deduction u/s.10A/10AA is at the Gross Total Income stage or at the Computation of total income stage decided in the case of CIT vs. Yokogawa India Ltd. [2016] Tax Corp ... exercise to be undertaken under Chapter VI of the Act 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

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Cognizant Technology Solutions India Private Limited, Chennai

ITA 1264/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 10ASection 144ASection 14ASection 40Section 9(1)

eligible units u/s.10A/10AA against the profits of other units without appreciating that the issue, whether the stage of deduction u/s.10A/10AA is at the Gross Total Income stage or at the Computation of total income stage decided in the case of CIT vs. Yokogawa India Ltd. [2016] Tax Corp ... exercise to be undertaken under Chapter VI of the Act 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

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Cognizant Technology Solutions India Private Limited, Chennai

ITA 1263/CHNY/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 10ASection 144ASection 14ASection 40Section 9(1)

eligible units u/s.10A/10AA against the profits of other units without appreciating that the issue, whether the stage of deduction u/s.10A/10AA is at the Gross Total Income stage or at the Computation of total income stage decided in the case of CIT vs. Yokogawa India Ltd. [2016] Tax Corp ... exercise to be undertaken under Chapter VI of the Act 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

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Cognizant Technology Solutions India Private Limited, Chennai

ITA 1262/CHNY/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon'Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1193, 1194, 1205, 1206 & 1207/Chny/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Cognizant Technology Solutions Vs The Asst. Commissioner India Pvt. Ltd., Of Income Tax, No.5/535, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Central Circle 1(1), Old Mahabalipuram Road, Chennai. Chennai - 600 096. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Pan: Aaacd 3312M (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1262, 1263, 1264, 1265 & 1266/Chny/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) The Asst. Commissioner Of Vs Cognizant Technology Income Tax, Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle 1(1), No.5/535, Okkiam Chennai. Thoraipakkam, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Chennai - 600 096. Pan: Aaacd 3312M (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) निधारिती की ओर से/Assessee By राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit & Ms. Anitha, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.03.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16.05.2025 - 2 -

For Respondent: Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate
Section 10ASection 14ASection 40Section 9(1)

eligible units u/s.10A/10AA against the profits of other units without appreciating that the issue, whether the stage of deduction u/s.10A/10AA is at the Gross Total Income stage or at the Computation of total income stage decided in the case of CIT vs. Yokogawa India Ltd. [2016] Tax Corp ... exercise to be undertaken under Chapter VI of the Act 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

Cognizant Technology Solutions India Private Limited, Chennai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle 1(1), Chennai

ITA 1207/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1193, 1194, 1205, 1206 & 1207/Chny/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Vs Cognizant Technology Solutions The Asst. Commissioner India Pvt. Ltd., Of Income Tax, No.5/535, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Central Circle 1(1), Old Mahabalipuram Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 096. Pan : Aaacd 3312M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1262, 1263, 1264, 1265 & 1266/Chny/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Vs The Asst. Commissioner Of Cognizant Technology Income Tax, Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle 1(1), No.5/535, Okkiam Chennai. Thoraipakkam, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Chennai – 600 096. Pan : Aaacd 3312M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 10ASection 14ASection 40Section 9(1)

eligible units u/s.10A/10AA against the profits of other units without appreciating that the issue, whether the stage of deduction u/s.10A/10AA is at the Gross Total Income stage or at the Computation of total income stage decided in the case of CIT vs. Yokogawa India Ltd. [2016] Tax Corp ... exercise to be undertaken under Chapter VI of the Act 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

Cognizant Technology Solutions India Private Limited, Chennai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle 1(1), Chennai

ITA 1206/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 10ASection 144ASection 14ASection 40Section 9(1)

eligible units u/s.10A/10AA against the profits of other units without appreciating that the issue, whether the stage of deduction u/s.10A/10AA is at the Gross Total Income stage or at the Computation of total income stage decided in the case of CIT vs. Yokogawa India Ltd. [2016] Tax Corp ... exercise to be undertaken under Chapter VI of the Act 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

Cognizant Technology Solutions India Private Limited, Chennai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle 1(1), Chennai

ITA 1205/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 10ASection 144ASection 14ASection 40Section 9(1)

eligible units u/s.10A/10AA against the profits of other units without appreciating that the issue, whether the stage of deduction u/s.10A/10AA is at the Gross Total Income stage or at the Computation of total income stage decided in the case of CIT vs. Yokogawa India Ltd. [2016] Tax Corp ... exercise to be undertaken under Chapter VI of the Act 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

Cognizant Technology Solutions India Private Limited, Chennai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle 1(1), Chennai

ITA 1194/CHNY/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 10ASection 144ASection 14ASection 40Section 9(1)

eligible units u/s.10A/10AA against the profits of other units without appreciating that the issue, whether the stage of deduction u/s.10A/10AA is at the Gross Total Income stage or at the Computation of total income stage decided in the case of CIT vs. Yokogawa India Ltd. [2016] Tax Corp ... exercise to be undertaken under Chapter VI of the Act 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

Cognizant Technology Solutions India Private Limited, Chennai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle 1(1), Chennai

ITA 1193/CHNY/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1193, 1194, 1205, 1206 & 1207/Chny/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Vs Cognizant Technology Solutions The Asst. Commissioner India Pvt. Ltd., Of Income Tax, No.5/535, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Central Circle 1(1), Old Mahabalipuram Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 096. Pan : Aaacd 3312M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1262, 1263, 1264, 1265 & 1266/Chny/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Vs The Asst. Commissioner Of Cognizant Technology Income Tax, Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle 1(1), No.5/535, Okkiam Chennai. Thoraipakkam, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Chennai – 600 096. Pan : Aaacd 3312M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 10ASection 14ASection 40Section 9(1)

eligible units u/s.10A/10AA against the profits of other units without appreciating that the issue, whether the stage of deduction u/s.10A/10AA is at the Gross Total Income stage or at the Computation of total income stage decided in the case of CIT vs. Yokogawa India Ltd. [2016] Tax Corp ... exercise to be undertaken under Chapter VI of the Act 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

Stella Maris Co Operative Housing Society, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 22 3 6, Piramal Chamders Mumbai

In the result, ITA No.1962/MUM/2025 stands allowed, whereas

ITA 1963/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri. Ajay Wadke, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Smitha V. Nair (CIT DR)
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 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

Stella Maris Co Operative Housing Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 22 3 6, Piramal Chambers

In the result, ITA No.1962/MUM/2025 stands allowed, whereas

ITA 1962/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri. Ajay Wadke, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Smitha V. Nair (CIT DR)
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 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

Up Government Employees Welfare, Lucknow vs. ACIT-2, Lucknow

ITA 745/LKW/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow14 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manu Chaurasia, CIT(DR)
Section 119(2)Section 124Section 139Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 226(3)Section 250

annexure, statements and columns in the return of income relating to computation of income chargeable under each head of income, computation of gross total income and total income have been duly filed in; 2. The CPC erred to not taking cognizance of Audit Report and Financials enclosed with

Autocomp Corporation Panse Private Limited, Pune vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2647/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

return of income on 28.11.2013 declaring total income of Rs.4,36,49,612/- after claiming deduction of Rs.12,10,83,766/- from the gross total income of Rs.16,47,33,378/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and an order u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter

Autocomp Corporation Panse Private Limited, Pune vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Pune

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2646/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

return of income on 28.11.2013 declaring total income of Rs.4,36,49,612/- after claiming deduction of Rs.12,10,83,766/- from the gross total income of Rs.16,47,33,378/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and an order u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter

Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University, Hissar vs. ITO, Exemption, Rohtak

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2225/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year 2018-19]

Section 10Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151

under:- Deductions in respect of profits and gains from industrial undertakings or enterprises engaged in infrastructure development, etc. 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

Gujarat State Financial Services Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. CIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 1226/AHD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2020-21

Section 135(5)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37Section 80GSection 80G(2)(a)

Section 80G of the Act, the assessee had claimed deduction of 50% of the contribution amounting to Rs.1,78,71,274/- from its gross total income. The Assessing Officer had disallowed the deduction claim of this amount made under Section 80G of the Act for the reason that the same

Income Tax Officer, Ward-8(3), Pune vs. M/S. Tata Motors Karmachari Sahakari Patpedhi Limited, Pune

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2529/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2529/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Income Tax Officer, V Tata Motors Karmachari Ward-8(3), Pune. S. Sahakari Patpedhi, H 5 3Rd Floor, C/O.Tata Motors, Pune City, Pune – 411018. Pan: Aabat7682B Appellant/ Revenue Respondent / Assessee Assessee By Shri Sanket Joshi – Ar Revenue By Shri Abhinay Kumbhar – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 06/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 08/05/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld.Commssioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Act, Dated 04.10.2024 For The A.Y.2017-18. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Disallowance Made By The Assessing Officer Of The Deduction Of Rs. 6,18,57,845/- Claimed Under Section Bop Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 Being Interest Earned From The Investments

Section 250Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

unnecessary to probe any further as to whether the co-operative society is classified as X or Y. 29. Thirdly, the gross total income must include income that is referred to in sub-section (2). 30. Fourthly, sub-clause (2)(a)(i) with which we are directly concerned, then speaks