← 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

Maithan Alloys Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-1(1), Kolkata.

In the result, appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1347/KOL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 1347/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Maithan Alloys Limited Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, 4Th Floor, Ideal Centre Vs Circle-1(1), Kolkata 9, Ajc Bose Road Kolkata - 700017 [Pan : Aabcm7758B] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Kejriwal, C.A. Revenue By : Shri Arun Kumar Meena, Jcit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07/02/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/02/2024 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. 29/11/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2021-22. 2. The Sole Grievance Of The Assessee Is That The Lower Authorities Erred In Denying The Claim Of Deduction U/S 80M Of The Act Towards Inter-Corporate Dividends At Rs.19,48,050/-. 3. At The Outset, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That In The Income Tax Return (Itr) Originally Filed As Well As Subsequently Revised, The Assessee Did Not Make The Claim Of Deduction U/S 80M Of The Act For Inter-Corporate Dividend. However, During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, This Claim Was Raised & On The Strength Of The Judgement Of The Hon’Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. V. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Reported In [1998]

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Kejriwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar Meena, JCIT, Sr. D/R
Section 250Section 80JSection 80M

| आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "यायपीठ, कोलकाता | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE DR. MANISH BORAD, HON’BLE