“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

South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd., Bilaspur(Cg) vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -1(1), Bilaspur(Cg)

ITA 144/BIL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur09 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 271(1)(c)

particulars of income given in the return are incorrectly stated by any machination, the impact is bound to be on the figure of gross total income to be mentioned under various heads of income and also on the total income chargeable to tax. In fact, reducing the figure of income

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -1(1), Bilaspur(Cg) vs. South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd., Bilaspur(Cg)

ITA 143/BIL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur09 Jun 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 271(1)(c)

South Eastern Coalfields Ltd, Bilaspur(Cg) vs. Dy.. C.I.T.-1(1), Bilaspur(Cg)

ITA 156/BIL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur09 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 271(1)(c)

The Dy. CIT- Cir.-1(1), Bilaspur(Cg) vs. South Eastern Coalfilds Ltd., Bilaspur(Cg)

ITA 152/BIL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur09 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 271(1)(c)

Goragandhi Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO-32(1)(5), Mumbai

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

ITA 1024/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri S Rifaur Rahmangoragandhicooperative Ito-32(1)(5), Housingsociety Ltd., Room.No 729, बनाम/ Svp Road, Borivali (W) Kautilya Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai –400 051. Bkc,Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 051. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaag3933F (""थ" / Respondent) (अपीलाथ" /Appellant)

For Appellant: Mr. Pojan Mehta.ARFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita Kaushik.DR

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

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

Sapein Funds Ltd., Mauritius vs. CIT (International Taxation) Delhi-3, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 976/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Vizay Vasanta, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263

located in low tax jurisdiction countries (Assessee being remitter) 2. Value of foreign remittance sent by the assessee is higher than the gross total income (Assessee being remitter). 8. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) on 24.12.2019 after considering the exempted income accepted the returned income

Pragati Pallavi, Patna vs. ITO, Ward-5(4), Patna

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 86/PAT/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna05 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 86/Pat/2021 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Pragati Pallavi Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(4), Vs Patna Flat No. 4 A/D Radha Kunj Apartment A.N. Path North S.K. Puri Patna - 800013 [Pan: Awhpp6938C] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Alok Kumar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Rupesh Agrawal, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30/05/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 05/06/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per, Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 31/08/2021, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Sole Grievance Of The Assessee Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Addition For Undisclosed Cash Deposit U/S 69A Of The Act At Rs. 13,50,000/- Deposited During The Demonetization Period. 3. Facts In Brief Are That The Assessee Is An Individual. Income Of Rs.8,40,280/- Declared In The Return For Assessment Year 2017-18. On The Basis Of The Reason That Cash Of Rs.18,50,000/- Has Been Deposited In The Bank Account Held By The Assessee With Kotak Mahindra Bank During Demonetization Period, Assessee’S Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Followed By Serving Of Notices U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, It Was Submitted That The Assessee Holds A Joint Account Her Husband In Kotak Mahindra Bank A/C No.

For Appellant: Shri Alok Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rupesh Agrawal, Sr. D/R

Section 143(2)Section 250Section 44ASection 69A

with Bar Council of Delhi. We have gone through the Income Tax return of the assessee’s husband, namely, Atish Kumar Vatts, wherein gross total income of Rs.29,34,507/- has been declared and in the schedule to ITR 4 available at page 15 of the paper book, we notice

Canadian Speciality Vinyls, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 63(4), New Delhi

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

ITA 7612/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & M.Balaganeshassessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Canadian Specialty Vinyls Ito Ward-63(4), Delhi 110055 49, Rani Janshi Road, Jhandewalan, New Delhi 110055 Vs. Pan Aagfc 0200 J

For Appellant: Shri Shaantanu Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Maimum Alam, Sr. DR

Section 2Section 801CSection 80I

respect of profit and gains from industrial under taking the interest received on deposit kept with electricity board should not be deducted from gross total income while computing the relief admissible u/s. 80I of the Income Tax Act 1961 (for short the ‘Act’ ). 4. Replying to the above ... High Court held that the interest received on deposit kept with electricity board has to be considered and should not be deducted from gross total income while computing deduction admissible u/s. 80I of the Act. In the present case the Assessing Officer himself at page 2 noted that the interest

Late Sh. Shekhar Dhariwal Through L/H Smt. Nikita Dhariwal, Dhariwal Bhawan, Shastri Market, Kota vs. ITO, Ward-2(2), Kota

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

ITA 51/JPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl.CIT

Section 147Section 148

account of mediclaim of Rs.14,293/- and deduction u/s 80TTA on account of saving bank interest of Rs.9,074/-. From the gross total income of Rs.6,10,075/-, deduction under Chapter VIA was claimed at Rs.1,23,367/- and total income is declared at Rs.4,86,710/-. However

Svatantra Microfin Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Centralised Processing Centre, Bangalore

ITA 872/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Sarda, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Sonia Kumar, D.R

Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)

providing micro loans for micro business to its customers. During the year under consideration the return of income filed by the assessee declaring gross total income of Rs.61,53,883/- was processed under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) by the Central Processing ... Centre (CPC) [Assessing Officer (AO)], Bangalore at the gross total income of Rs.82,63,913/- by making addition of Rs.21,05,703/- on account of disallowing the deduction claimed by the assessee on account of delayed payment of employees’ contribution of Provident Fund (PF) and Employees State Insurance Corporation (ESIC

Mohammedally Noorbhoy Bandukwalla Trust, Mumbai vs. Add/Joint/Deputy/ACIT/ITO, NFAC, Delhi

ITA 721/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am Mohammedally Noorbhoy Bandukwalla Trust Bhiwandiwala Terrace, J S S Ito, Nfac Delhi Road, Next To Parsi Fire Temple, Estate, Delhi, Metro Cinema, Shop No. 1, Vs. Delhi-110002 Block A, 626 Dhobi Talao Marine Lines(E), Mumbai-400002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaatm0718K Assessee By : Shri K. Gopal & Shri Om Kadalgaokar, Ars Revenue By : Shri P. D. Chougule, Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.05.2023

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal &For Respondent: Shri P. D. Chougule, DR

Section 12ASection 143Section 143(1)Section 164(2)Section 3

show that assessee is a public charitable trust registered with charity commissioner. It filed its return of income on 26th September, 2014, declaring gross total income of ₹8,47,167/-. The above income was offered under the head income from other sources, assessee computed tax at a normal rate

Rashtriya Chemicals and Fertilisers Employees Co-Op Credit Society, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-27(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 765/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.765/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Rashtriya Chemicals & बिधम/ The Ito, Ward-27(3)(1) Fertilisers Employees’ Co- Room No. 442, 4Th Floor, Vs. Op. Credit Society Tower No. 6, Vashi Type-1A/21 481/484, Railway Station Chembur, Mumbai-400074. Commercial Complex, Vashi, Navi Mumbai- 4000703. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaar1076N (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mayank Thosar Revenue By: Shri P. D. Chougule (Addl. Cit) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 24/05/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/05/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Rashtriya Chemicals & Fertilisers Employees Co-Operative Credit Society Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 12.01.2023 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Confirming The Action Of The Ao In Not Allowing The Deduction Claimed By The Assessee U/S 80P Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) To The Tune Of Rs.99,59,604/-. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Credit Co- Operative Society Providing Credit Facilities To Its Members. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 27.09.2012 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.Nil. Later, The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass. & The Ao Noted That The Assessee Is A Co-

For Appellant: Shri Mayank ThosarFor Respondent: Shri P. D. Chougule (Addl. CIT)

Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(4)

main activity of the assessee is to provide credit facility to its members. The AO noted that the assessee has shown gross total income of Rs.99,59,604/- and after claiming deduction u/s 80P of the Act to the tune of Rs.99,59,604/-. it has declared its income