“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

Novartis India Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 7(1), Mumbai

ITA 2308/MUM/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2024AY 2003-04

Bench: Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 37(1)Section 41(3)Section 80H

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, “J” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ACIT Cir 7(1), Mumbai vs. Novartis India ( Formelry Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd), Mumbai

In the result, (i) the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose (ii) the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and (iii) the Cross Objections filed by the assessee ...

ITA 2188/MUM/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2024AY 2003-04

Bench: Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawal & Co 76/Mum/2013 (A.Y 2003-04) Novartis India Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income–Tax–14(1)(1) Inspire Bkc, 7Th Floor, Room No 432, Bandra Kurla Complex, Aaykar Bhawan, Bandra (E) M.K. Marg, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400020. Pan/Gir No. Aaach2914F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Deputy Commissioner Vs. Novartis India Limited Of Income–Tax–14(1)(1) Inspire Bkc, 7Th Floor, Room No 432, Bandra Kurla Complex, Aaykar Bhawan, Bandra (E) M.K. Marg, Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400020 Pan/Gir No. Aaach2914F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 37(1)Section 41(3)Section 80H

decision. This Court noted that the Supreme Court had held that the processing charges, though they form a part of the gross total income, constitute independent income like rent, commission and brokerage and that hence 90 per cent of the same had to be reduced from the gross total income ... following observations of the Supreme Court : "That, profit incentives and items like rent, commission, brokerage, charges etc., though formed part of gross total income had to be excluded as they were 'independent incomes' which had no element, of export turnover. That, the said items distorted the figure of export profits

Interglobe Technology Quotient Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner Circle 10(1), New Delhi

ITA 95/DEL/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2024AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharma[Assessment Year: 2020-21

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 199Section 250Section 251(2)Section 80G

sums 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

Mehul Anantrai Shah, Vile Parle vs. ACIT 17(1), Bandra Kurla Comple

In the result, ground number 3 of the appeal which is against the addition made of Rs

ITA 3940/MUM/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Tarang Mehta and Shri Vijay Mehta CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Meshram, Sr DR

Section 143Section 154Section 192A

return of income and income disclosed in form number 26AS. 5. Subsequently assessee revised its return of income on 29/4/2019 and gross total income of Rs.8,917,220 and disclosed exempt income of Rs.4,245,904/– which included the sum ofRs.3,291,601 being income received from the employee

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-4(4), Mumbai vs. Iris Computers Limited, Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is accordingly dismissed

ITA 3918/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Prashant Maharshi & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhandy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. Iris Computers Limited, Central Circle-4(4), Mumbai Delhi. Room No. 1918, Air India Building, A-155, Road No. 4, New Nariman Point – 400 021. Delhi, Mahipalpur – 110037. Pan: Aaaci9670H (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250

bank account with HDFC and the sources of such fund found to be genuine. In the Income Tax return, he has shown gross total income of Rs. 1,59,38,959/- for the AY 2017-18 Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle

Smt. Jagdeep Kaur, Ludhiana vs. ITO, Ward 6(4), Ludhiana

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 81/CHANDI/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: This Hon’Ble Tribunal Under Section 253 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022- 23/1048105767(1) Dt. 20/12/2022 Which Was Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) Nfac, Delhi Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Said First Appeal Was Dismissed By The Ld. Cit(A). Therefore Assessee Is Before Us. The Said Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Is Hereinafter Referred To As The “Impugned Order”. 4. In Form No. 36 The Assessee Interalia Has Take Up Following Grounds Of Appeal Against The Impugned Order Which Are Reproduced Below:

For Appellant: Smt. Supriya, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 142Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 253

being total deposits in bank accounts) 4687266 ii) Income declared u/s 44AD(@8% of Gross receipts) 375000 iii) Saving Interest Income 477 iv) Gross Total Income (ii + iii) 375477 Further the assessee has deposited a sum of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) as advance tax during the year

Sanjeev Kumar Goyal, Fatehabad vs. DCIT, CC-2, Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

ITA 80/CHANDI/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 May 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: This Hon’Ble Tribunal Under Section 253 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 As Amended From Time To Time. 2. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dt. 20/01/2023 In Appeal No. 10853/2018-19/It/Cit(A)-5/Ldh/2021-22 For The A.Y. 2019-20 Under Section 250(6) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Which Was Dismissed. Therefore The Present Second Appeal Under Section 253 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Before Us Against The Aforesaid Order Dt. 20/01/2023 Which Is Hereinafter Referred To As The Impugned Order.

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate and Shri Rishaba Marwaha, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Dharamvir, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 250(6)Section 253Section 68

same business of running a hotel and had filed its return of income on 25.02.2020, wherein, the assessee has declared a gross total income of Rs. 43,58,490/-. The copy of the acknowledgment of filing of return of income for AY 2019-20 along with computation of income

Saptagiri Pattina Souharda Sahakari Sangha Niyamitha Sindhanur, Sindhanur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Raichur

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

ITA 593/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Prasanna N Urala, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Srinath S., Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 57Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)

operative society from its investments with any other co-operative society, so long as the same forms part of the Gross Total Income. For the purpose of this clause, it is pertinent to refer to Section 2(b1) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 wherein a Co-operative

Saptagiri Pattina Souharda Sahakari Sangha Niyamitha Sindhanur, Sindhanur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Raichur

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

ITA 592/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Prasanna N Urala, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Srinath S., Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 57Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)

Sadhana Sahakari Patpedhi Limited, Vasai, Palghar vs. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi

ITA 57/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2024AY 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Unmesh NarvekarFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

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 ... 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

Sadhana Sahakari Patpedhi Limited, Palghar vs. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi

ITA 56/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2024AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Unmesh NarvekarFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

ITO-26(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Sangli Vaibhav Co Operative Credit Society Limited, Mumbai

ITA 3770/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2024AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Ketan L. VajaniFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 80P(2)(d)

ITO-26(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Sangli Vaibhav Co Operative Credit Society Limited, Mumbai

ITA 3769/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Ketan L. VajaniFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 80P(2)(d)

ITO-26(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Sangli Vaibhav Co Operative Credit Society Limited, Mumbai

ITA 3766/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2024AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Shri Ketan L. VajaniFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 80P(2)(d)

Associated Techno Plastic P. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1890/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 May 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year : 2008-09] Associated Techno Plastic P.Ltd., Vs Dcit, Elegence Level-2, Mathura Road, Circle-2(1), Jasola, New Delhi-110025. New Delhi. Pan-Aaaca2525K Appellant Respondent Appellant By None Respondent By Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 08.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 22.05.2024

Section 143(1)Section 144Section 14ASection 234BSection 40Section 68

Unsecured loans u/s 68 of the I.T. Act (As discussed in para 6 of the order above) (+)1.21,47,451 Gross Total Income 1,41,04,290 Less: Brought forward business losses and Unabsorbed depreciation set off (As per return of income) (-)1,27,11,752 Total Income

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 26(1), Mumbai vs. R D Tata Trust, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the learned Assessing Officer is dismissed

ITA 4075/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm The Asst. Commissioner Of Rd Tata Trust, Income Tax 26(1) 2Nd Floor, Bombay House, 24 202, Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Homi Mody Street, Fort, Vs. Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaatr8173R : Shri Atul T. Suraiya Ar Assessee By Revenue By : Smt. Mahita Nair, Dr Date Of Hearing: 14.05.2024 21.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement :

For Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, DR

Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 80Section 80GSection 80G(2)(iiif)Section 80G(4)

case, the learned CIT (A) erred as the provisions of Sec. 80G(4), the donation made in excess of 10% of gross total income is ignored for the purpose of computation of aggregate of sum in respect on which deduction is to be allowed under section 80G. 2. Whether ... against the column of deduction u/s 80 G of the Act ] and restricted the same to ₹247,23,301/- to the extent of gross total income of the assessee. The learned Assessing Officer found that as per the provisions of 04. Section 80G(4), the donation made in excess

Vodafone India Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-8(3)(2), Mumbai

ITA 2834/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2024AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri P.J. PardiwalaFor Respondent: Shri T. Sankar

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 234DSection 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37Section 40

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "I" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Vodafone India Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 8(3)(2), Mumbai

ITA 884/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2024AY 2011-12

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 234DSection 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37Section 40

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "I" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER

DCIT 8(3)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Vodafone Idea Limited (Earlier Known As Vodafone India Limited Which Now Stands Merged With Idea Cellular Limited (Icl) and Consequently Known As Vodafone Idea Limited), Mumbai

ITA 1919/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2024AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri P.J. PardiwalaFor Respondent: Shri T. Sankar

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 234DSection 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37Section 40

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "I" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Little Fairy Limited, Nicosia vs. ACIT Circle International Taxation 2(1)(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 1513/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshlittle Fairy Ltd, Vs. Acit, Office 601, 6Th Floor, Circle- Anastasio Building, 15, International Tax- Dimitriou Karatasou, 2(2)(1), Strovolos 2024, Nicosia, New Delhi Foreign Cyprus (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaccl1478L Assessee By : Shri J. Srivastav, Adv Shri Karav Malhotra, Adv Revenue By: Shri Manish Kumar Davas, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 08/03/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 15/05/2024

For Appellant: Shri J. Srivastav, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Manish Kumar Davas, Sr. DR

Section 144C(3)Section 234BSection 282

which is based in Mauritius. The return of income for AY 2017-18 was filed by the assessee on 28.09.2017 declaring gross total income of ₹21,81,06,913/-. On 10.01.2012, the assessee entered into investment agreement with India Bulls Infra Estate Ltd for a project concerning transfer of rights