← 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

Metro Brands Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1004/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jun 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeassessment Year : 2023-24 Metro Brands Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of 401, Zillion 4Th Floor, Income Tax, Kurla West, Vs. Circle-2(2)(1), Lbs Marg & Aayakar Bhavan, Cst Road Junction, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400070. Pan : Aaacm4754E (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Nitesh Joshi For Revenue : Shri Annavaram Kosuri Date Of Hearing : 04-06-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 17-06-2025 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Addl/Jcit(A)-1, Visakhapatnam [„Ld.Cit(A)‟], Dated 18-12-2024, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2023-24, Wherein The Assessee Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram Kosuri
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 44ASection 80J

Appeals) ("Ld. CIT(A)") has erred in confirming action of the CPC in denying the deduction of Rs. 1,28,57,142/- claimed under section 80JJAA of Act. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, deduction claimed under section 80JJAA of Act amounting ... further submitted that in the return of income, the assessee has claimed deduction of Rs. 1,28,57,142/- under section 80JJAA of the Income-tax Act 1961 ("the Act") and the break-up of the deduction claimed is as under: Particulars Amount (Rs.) 1. Deduction for immediately preceding

G4S Secure Solutions (India) Private Limited, West Delhi, India vs. Central Processing Center, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5285/DEL/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 May 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2023-24 G4S Secure Solutions (India) Vs Cpc, Private Limited, Bengaluru. 9Th Floor, Tower-B, Good Earth Trade Tower, Sector-62, Bhondsi So (168), Gurugram, Haryana – 122 102. Pan: Aaacg1625Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Kapoor, Ms Ananya Kapoor & Shri Shivam Yadav, Advocates Revenue By : Shri Surender Pal, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 12.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.05.2025 Order Per Vimal Kumar, Jm: The Appeal By The Appellant/Assessee Is Against The Order Dated 23.09.2024 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-6, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Ld. Cit(A)’] U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) In Appeal Arising Out Of The Order Dated 27.03.2024 U/S 143(1) Of The Act Of The Cpc, Bengaluru (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Ld. Ao’), For Assessment Year 2023-24. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed The Original Return Of Income Along With Form 10Da On 29.11.2023. Subsequently, The Return Of Income Along With Form 10Da Was Revised On 30.12.2023. The Cpc Processed The Return Disallowing Deduction U/S 80Jjaa Of The Act, Vide Intimation Dated 27.03.2024. Against This Intimation Dated 27.03.2024, The Appellant Assessee Filed Appeal Before The Ld.Cit(A) Which Was Partly Allowed, Vide Order Dated 23.09.2024. 3. Being Aggrieved, The Appellant-Assessee Has Preferred The Present Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, Ms Ananya KapoorFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, CIT, DR
Section 143(1)Section 250Section 80J

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES: B : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIMAL

Talentpro India Hr Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle 3(1), Chennai

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

ITA 2722/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Mar 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2721 & 2722/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 Talentpro India Hr Private Limited, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 30, Ethiraj Salai, Egmore, Income Tax, Chennai 600 008. Corporate Circle 3(1), Chennai. [Pan:Aabcp9823A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Sanjeev Aditya, C.A. (Virtual) ""थ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit & Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13.02.2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.03.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per S.R. Raghunathaboth The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different But Identical Orders Of The Addl/Jcit(A), Thiruvanantpuram Both Dated 28.08.2024 For The Assessment Years 2018-19 & 2019-20. 2. Since Issues Raised In Both The Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed To Hear The Appeals Together & Pass Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Aditya, C.A. (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT &
Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

both the assessment years under consideration. 12. The next common ground raised by the assessee is with regard to restriction of deduction under section 80JJAA of the Act. 13. Consequent upon the confirmation of disallowance of late payment of PF & ESIC of ₹.3,23,84,312/-, the first appellate authority ... enhanced the total income from business to ₹.5,98,08,044/- and the deduction under section 80JJAA of the Act has been restricted to ₹.4,16,35,521/-, which is 30% of total cost incurred of ₹.13,87,85,069/- as against the assessee’s claim