← All Phrases

“section 80JJAA”

DeductionsSection 80JJAASection 80JJAA247 judgments

The decision most relied on for section 80JJAA is CIT v. G.M. Knitting Industries (P.) Ltd. (376 ITR 456), cited in 221 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on section 80JJAA

CIT v. G.M. Knitting Industries (P.) Ltd.
376 ITR 456 · 2015 · Supreme Court
221
citing judgments

The requirement to file a certificate or form (e.g., Form 10CCB, 10-IC) along with the return of income for claiming a deduction (e.g., under sections 80-IB, 115BAA) is directory regarding its timing. Such a deduction is allowable if the requisite form is filed before the final order of assessment, as procedural requirements should not override substantive benefits.

Apex Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT
135 Taxmann.com 286 · 2022 · Supreme Court
148
citing judgments

Expenditure incurred by pharmaceutical companies on freebies provided to medical practitioners is not deductible under Explanation 1 to Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, as such gifting is prohibited by the Medical Council Regulations, 2002. The court also held that what is directly prohibited by law cannot be indirectly evaded through contrivance.

Orissa State Warehousing Corpn v. CIT
237 ITR 589 · 1999 · Supreme Court
114
citing judgments

A fiscal statute must be interpreted strictly based on its plain language, without substituting judicial impressions for legislative intent. Exemptions and exclusions within such statutes must also be construed strictly and cannot be extended through interpretation.

CIT v. Tara Agencies
292 ITR 444 · 2007 · Supreme Court
80
citing judgments

When interpreting fiscal legislation, courts must adhere strictly to the plain and unambiguous language of the statute, without introducing intendment, equity, or words not present in the text, irrespective of perceived hardship. The legislative intent must be gathered solely from what has been said and not said in the statutory language.

Best Trading and Agencies Limited v. DCIT
119 Taxmann.com 129 · 2020 · High Court
45
citing judgments

The computation provisions for long-term capital gains, including the benefit of indexation under sections 45, 48, and 112, are applicable when determining book profits under section 115JB(5) for Minimum Alternate Tax, unless explicitly overridden, ensuring the 'real income' is taxed.

Form No. 10B. In Trust For Reaching The Unreached Through Trustee v. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Ahmedabad
126 Taxmann.com 77 · 2021 · High Court
34
citing judgments

A trust substantially satisfying the conditions for exemption under Section 11 cannot be denied that exemption solely due to a procedural delay in furnishing the audit report in Form No. 10, as the submission of the form is considered a procedural rather than a mandatory condition.

Digital Equipment India Ltd. v. DCIT
103 TTJ 329 · 2006 · ITAT
27
citing judgments

A mere substantial profit does not inherently indicate an arrangement to earn profits beyond ordinary levels to abuse tax concessions under Section 80-IA(9) or (10). The Assessing Officer must provide specific evidence of such an arrangement.

Addl. CIT v. Delhi Press Patra Prakashan
10 SOT 74 · 2006 · ITAT
19
citing judgments

An Assessing Officer cannot arbitrarily adjust the profit margin of a specific unit by comparing it to the overall profit margin of the assessee, especially when the units have different business natures and separate books of accounts are maintained.

Judgments citing section 80JJAA

Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Co. Ltd., Chennai vs. PCIT-4, Chennai

ITA 3261/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No 3261/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2020-21 Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Company Limited, No. 2 Dare House, Chennai G.P.O, Parrys, Chennai-600001. V. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-4, Pcit, Chennai Room No 301, 3Rd Floor, Wanaparthy Block, 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600034 [Pan: Aabcc 6633 K] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से//Assessee By प्रत्योंकों की ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : Mr. Sandeep Bagmar, R, Advocate : Mr. Shiva Srinivas, Cit : 25.11.2025 : 18.02.2026 आदेश / Order Per Manu Kumar Giri: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.11.2024 Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai-4 (Hereinafter Referred To As "Pcit") U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, ("The Act") For Assessment Year (Ay) 2020- 21.

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 154Section 263Section 80G

2020-21.Thereafter, in Finance Bill 2020 it was proposed to not to allow deduction under any provisions of Chapter VI-A other than section 80JJAA or section 80M of the Act, in case of domestic companies opting for taxation under these sections with effect from 01 April

Fis Global Business Solutions India Private Limited, Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 3595/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwalita No. 3595/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2018-19 Fis Global Business Solutions India Vs Dcit, Pvt. Ltd., S-405, Lgf, Greater Circle-7(1), Kailash, Part-Ii, Delhi-110048 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaach2815H Assessee By : Ms. Sumish Murgai, Ca, Sh. Vishal Kalra, Adv. & Ms. Kashish Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Yogeshwer Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.01.2026 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2018-19 Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024–25/1074701797(1) Dated 19.03.2025, In Proceedings U/S 14(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Ms. Sumish Murgai, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Yogeshwer Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 14(3)Section 80A(5)Section 80J

appellant, the Hon’ble High Court had 3 FIS Global Business Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. held that the amendment brought into section 80JJAA of the Act, being clarificatory in nature, would apply retrospectively, and therefore, even though the second proviso to the said section was inserted w.e.f. 01.04.2019, its beneficial ... appellant have been duly considered. The appellant filed its ITR on 28.11.2018. The Finance Act, 2018 vide which the said amendment was made to section 80JJAA of the Act by way of insertion of second proviso thereto, received accent of the Hon’ble President of India

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi vs. Trimaster Private Limited, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes and Cross Objection of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 955/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2021-22 Assistant Commissioner Of Trimaster Private Limited, Income Tax, Room No.192A, 222, Okhla Industrial Estate, First Floor, C.R. Building, Ito, Vs New Delhi-110020 Delhi-110002 Pan-Aaacn0138P Assessee Revenue Cross Objection No.119/Del/2025 (Arising Out Of Ita No.955/Del/2025 ) [Assessment Year: 2021-22 Trimaster Private Limited, Assistant Commissioner Of Income 222, Okhla Industrial Estate, Tax, Room No.192A, First Floor, New Delhi-110020 Vs C.R. Building, Ito, Delhi-110002 Pan-Aaacn0138P Assessee Revenue Assessee By Shri Nitini Kumar Sharma, Ca Revenue By Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 07.01.2026

Section 10ASection 115BSection 143(3)Section 32Section 32ASection 33ASection 35Section 35ASection 35C

section 35 or section 35AD or section 35CCC or section 35CCD or under any provisions of Chapter VI-A other than the provisions of section 80JJAA or section 80M; (ii) without set off of any loss carried forward or depreciation from any earlier assessment year, if such loss or depreciation ... section 35 or section 35AD or section 35CCC or section 35CCD or under any provisions of Chapter VI-A other than the provisions of section 80JJAA or section 80M in previous year(s). Thus the assesse company has failed to prove that the loss of Rs.2