← All Phrases

“new employees”

DeductionsSection 80JJAASection 80JJAA69 judgments

The decision most relied on for new employees is PCIT v. New Delhi Television Ltd. (398 ITR 57), cited in 42 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on new employees

PCIT v. New Delhi Television Ltd.
398 ITR 57 · 2017 · High Court
42
citing judgments

Expenditure on Employees Stock Options Plan (ESOP) compensation is an ascertained liability and is allowable as revenue expenditure.

26 (Delhi) PCIT v. New Delhi Television Ltd.
99 Taxmann.com 401 · 2018 · High Court
23
citing judgments

Expenditure arising from Employee Stock Option Plan (ESOP) compensation is an allowable revenue expenditure deductible under section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

International Tractors Ltd. v. DCIT
435 ITR 85 · 2021 · High Court
16
citing judgments

The Delhi High Court allowed deduction under Section 80JJAA even if the claim was made during assessment proceedings, provided the claim was otherwise sustainable in law.

Akuntha Projects (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Director-CPC
162 Taxmann.com 861 · 2024 · ITAT
10
citing judgments

A claim for deduction under Section 80JJAA cannot be denied solely because Form 10DA was not filed within the prescribed time, especially if the requisite audit report was available to the Assessing Officer before the assessment order was framed. Procedural lapses or mistakes in filing the form do not justify denial of the claim.

Bosch Ltd. v. ACIT, LTU, Banglore
74 Taxmann.com 161 · 2016 · ITAT
10
citing judgments

An assessee is entitled to the benefit of Section 80JJAA as long as an employee has worked for 300 days, even if this period is split across the assessment year or financial year. The deduction under Section 80JJAA is allowed for three years, including the year employment is provided, and each year requires verification of at least 300 days of work by a non-casual employee.

Judgments citing new employees

Bashir Jafar Bhaldar, Sonai Services 1 Sonai Services, Baramati Road Ind vs. Assessing Officer Ward 14(5) Pune, Aayakar Sadan Bodhi Tower Salasbury Park Gultekdi

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

ITA 2919/PUN/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jan 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2919/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2023-24

For Appellant: Shri Rajkumar DoshiFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 288Section 33BSection 44ASection 80J

observation of the Assessing Officer that there is no increase in the number of employees as compared to March, 2022. He submitted that since new employees were employed during F.Y. 2020-21 assessee claimed first instalment of deduction @30% in A.Y. 2021-22 and remaining two instalments of deduction ... reference to the provisions of section 80JJA of the Act which reads as under : 3 Bashir Jafar Bhaldar “Deduction in respect of employment of new employees. 80JJAA. (1) Where the gross total income of an assessee to whom section 44AB applies, includes any profits and gains derived from business, there

Charchit Garg, Indore vs. Income Tax Officer, Indore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 306/IND/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Indore13 Jan 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 250Section 44ASection 80J

form 10DA before filling of the Income Tax return as the assessee was eligible to claim the exemption u/s 80JJAA on the basis of new employees employed during the year and the same was available on the record at the time of assessment u/s 143(1). Hence, deduction u/s 80JJAA

Rashi Peripherals Limited, Mumbai vs. PCIT, Mumbai-3, Mumbai

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed

ITA 3671/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Omkareshwar Chidara

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 263Section 80J

learned Commissioner of Income Tax Departmental Representative (Id. CIT-DR) for the revenue submits that assessing officer has only verified the details of new employees and old employees along with appointment letter and employee-wise salary with details of TDS and ignore the fact that Form 10DA was filed beyond ... assessment proceedings issued show cause notice dated 28.12.2023 and sought explanation about the deduction under section 80JJAA. The assessing officer also sought details of new employees, old employees with their appointment letter, employee's salary, and details of TDS and calculation of 80JJAA. The assessee in response to such show

Dusters Total Solutions Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 980/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Kavita Jha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand H Kalakeri, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 80J

/Bang/2025 Page 3 of 40 activity. However, the AO noted that assessee has not provided the PAN to prove the identity and genuineness of new employees. Further, in cases where PAN were provided for few employees, some of them were also found to be wrong PAN. 4.2 However, the assessee ... individual only requires to obtain PAN if his/her income exceeds the threshold limit chargeable to tax. As such, the income of most of the new employees was below the taxable limit therefore the Adhar Card of all the employees was obtained and updated in the system. However, the AO rejected

Dusters Total Solutions Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 653/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Kavita Jha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand H Kalakeri, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 80J

/Bang/2025 Page 3 of 40 activity. However, the AO noted that assessee has not provided the PAN to prove the identity and genuineness of new employees. Further, in cases where PAN were provided for few employees, some of them were also found to be wrong PAN. 4.2 However, the assessee ... individual only requires to obtain PAN if his/her income exceeds the threshold limit chargeable to tax. As such, the income of most of the new employees was below the taxable limit therefore the Adhar Card of all the employees was obtained and updated in the system. However, the AO rejected

Dusters Total Solutions Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

ITA 652/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Respondent: Smt. Kavita Jha, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 80J

No.652-653-980/Bang/2025 activity. However, the AO noted that assessee has not provided the PAN to prove the identity and genuineness of new employees. Further, in cases where PAN were provided for few employees, some of them were also found to be wrong PAN. 4.2 However, the assessee contended that an individual ... only requires to obtain PAN if his/her income exceeds the threshold limit chargeable to tax. As such, the income of most of the new employees was below the taxable limit therefore the Adhar Card of all the employees was obtained and updated in the system. However, the AO rejected this

DCIT, Swargate Pune vs. Cummins India Ltd, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 1256/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 250Section 35

finding of Ld.CIT(A) allowing the deduction u/s. 80JJAA of the Act which is claimed by the assessee in respect of employment of new employees. We observe that assessee's claim of deduction u/s.80JJAA of the Act at Rs.60,72,090/- has been denied by the CPC for delay ... 80JJAA for delay in the Hing of original return u/s 143(1). This is with respect to deduction in respect of employment of new employees. The Appellant filed its original return of income for the AY 2018- 2019 on 01 December 2018 claiming deduction u/s.80JJAA

Cummins India Limited, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 1(1), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 632/PUN/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistri, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Prakash L. Pathade, CIT-DR
Section 10ASection 13Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 250Section 80J

Nos.632/PUN/ 2022 & ITA No. 1256/PUN/ 2023 (Cummins India Limited) 80JJAA of the Act which is claimed by the assessee in respect of employment of new employees. We observe that assessee’s claim of deduction u/s. 80JJAA of the Act at Rs. 60,72,090/- has been denied ... 80JJAA for delay in the Hing of original return u/s 143(1). This is with respect to deduction in respect of employment of new employees. The Appellant filed its original return of income for the AY 2018- 2019 on O01 December 2018 claiming deduction u/s. 80JJAA

Dodla Dairy Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT Circle -8(1), Hyderabad

ITA 466/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Us:

For Appellant: Shri Aashik Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. U. Mini Chandran
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 80Section 801BSection 80J

आयकर अपील"य "याया"धकरण म", हैदराबाद ‘‘ए” ब"च, हैदराबाद IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad “A” Bench

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 8 1 (Incharge), Hyderabad vs. Virtusa Consulting Services Private Limited, Tamil Nadu

In the result, the ground of appeal in Ground No 2-4 in IT(TP)A No

ITA 2632/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathait (Tp) A No.:42/Chny/2024 & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.2262/Chny/2024 "नधा%रण वष% / Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri. N. V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. A R V Sreenivasan, C.I.T
Section 10ASection 35(1)(iv)

paid to such workmen, amounting to INR 5,55,96,850. 10. The learned CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the fact that the new employees with the designation ‘Senior Project Lead’ and ‘Associate Consultant’ were employed by the assessee during the subject AY to merely provide technical services associated

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Hyderabad vs. Virtusa Consulting Services Private Limited, Chennai Tamil Nadu

In the result, the ground of appeal in Ground No 2-4 in IT(TP)A No

ITA 2631/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathait (Tp) A No.:42/Chny/2024 & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.2262/Chny/2024 "नधा%रण वष% / Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri. N. V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. A R V Sreenivasan, C.I.T
Section 10ASection 35(1)(iv)

paid to such workmen, amounting to INR 5,55,96,850. 10. The learned CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the fact that the new employees with the designation ‘Senior Project Lead’ and ‘Associate Consultant’ were employed by the assessee during the subject AY to merely provide technical services associated

Virtusa Consulting Services Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, CC-5(2), Chennai

In the result, the ground of appeal in Ground No 2-4 in IT(TP)A No

ITA 2262/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathait (Tp) A No.:42/Chny/2024 & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.2262/Chny/2024 "नधा%रण वष% / Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri. N. V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. A R V Sreenivasan, C.I.T
Section 10ASection 35(1)(iv)

paid to such workmen, amounting to INR 5,55,96,850. 10. The learned CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the fact that the new employees with the designation ‘Senior Project Lead’ and ‘Associate Consultant’ were employed by the assessee during the subject AY to merely provide technical services associated

Lotus Footwear Enterprises Limited-India Branch, Tiruvannamalai vs. DCIT, International Tax 1(2), Chennai

In the result all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 800/CHNY/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Sept 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. Sriram Seshadri, C.A. &For Respondent: Ms. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.T
Section 10A

Total Technical manpower as at the end of FY 14-15 in LU 2 2049 (Refer Table 6) (D) Minimum number of new employees to be recruited during the year in both units (50% of the closing technical 1025 manpower) – Refer Para 4 of Circular 14/2014 ... years 2012-13 to 2015-16. The Tribunal had also examined technical manpower employed in the new unit and has noted that percentage of new employees in the SEZ unit was 83% and 64% during the period relevant to the assessment years 2011-12 and 2013-14. Clearly new employment

Lotus Footwear Enterprises Limited-India Branch, Tiruvannamalai vs. DCIT, International Tax 1(2), Chennai

ITA 799/CHNY/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Sept 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.: 20/Chny/2021 &

Section 10ASection 115J

Total Technical manpower as at the end of FY 14-15 in LU 2 (Refer Table 6) (D) 2049 Minimum number of new employees to be recruited during the year in both units (50% of the closing technical manpower) – Refer Para 4 of Circular 14/2014 ... years 2012-13 to 2015-16. The Tribunal had also examined technical manpower employed in the new unit and has noted that percentage of new employees in the SEZ unit was 83% and 64% during the period relevant to the assessment years 2011-12 and 2013-14. Clearly new employment

Lotus Footwear Enterprises Limited-India Branch, Tiruvannamalai vs. DCIT, International Tax 1(2), Chennai

In the result all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 798/CHNY/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Sept 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. Sriram Seshadri, C.A. &
Section 10A

operation) (C = A+B) Total Technical manpower as at the end of FY 14-15 inLU2 2049 (Refer Table 6) (D) Minimum number of new employees to be recruited during the year in both units (50% of the closing technical 1025 manpower) — Refer Para 4 of Circular 14/2014 ... years 2012-13 to 2015-16. The Tribunal had also examined technical manpower employed in the new unit and has noted that percentage of new employees in the SEZ unit was 83% and 64% during the period relevant to the assessment years 2011-12 and 2013-14. Clearly new employment

Manpowergroup Services India Private Limited, Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2, Delhi, Jhandewalan Extension, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3585/DEL/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Sept 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dharm Veer Singh, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 80JSection 92CSection 92D

Assessing Officer disallowed deduction u/s 80JJAA, on the following grounds: a) Deduction u/s 80JJAA is available only in respect of 'Regular employees' whereas, new employees hired by the assessee are temporary and on contract basis. b) Temporary employees hired by the assessee are deputed on assignment ... with all the requirements of the amended Section 80JJAA of the Act and is eligible for deduction of 30% of additional salary of the new employees hired, for a period of three years. The assessee placed copies of evidence to demonstrate that the employees, hired on fixed term contract

Akshar Elecinfra Private Limited, Vadodara vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1 (1) (1), Vadodara

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

ITA 751/AHD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalakshar Elecinfra Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. 986/20/13, Akshar House, Income Tax, Diamond Park, Gidc, Circle-1(1)(1, Makarpura, Vadodara. Vadodara-390010. [Pan :Aahca6615 P] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri P B Parmar, Ar Respondent By: Shri Abhijit, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16.09.2025 O R D E R Per Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-:-

For Appellant: Shri P B Parmar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 250Section 80J

disallowance for the current year is purely technical in nature, based on the alleged non-filing of Form 10DA, despite the fact that no new employees were hired during the year, the deduction claimed pertains to earlier years and the income-tax e-filing portal did not permit uploading Form

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Mrf Limited, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 911/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr.Vikram VijayaraghavanFor Respondent: Mr.Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

employees who were recruited in preceding year but completed period of 300 days during the year under consideration have to be considered as new employees of the year under consideration for the purpose of section 80JJAA. On considering the said employees as new regular workmen, the appellant has satisfied ... case of Texas Instruments (supra), and hold that the assessee was entitled to claim deduction u/s 80JJAA of the Act in respect of the new employees who did not complete continuous employment of more than 300 days during their respective years of joining

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Mrf Limited, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 910/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr.Vikram VijayaraghavanFor Respondent: Mr.Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

employees who were recruited in preceding year but completed period of 300 days during the year under consideration have to be considered as new employees of the year under consideration for the purpose of section 80JJAA. On considering the said employees as new regular workmen, the appellant has satisfied ... case of Texas Instruments (supra), and hold that the assessee was entitled to claim deduction u/s 80JJAA of the Act in respect of the new employees who did not complete continuous employment of more than 300 days during their respective years of joining

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Mrf Limited, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 909/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr.Vikram VijayaraghavanFor Respondent: Mr.Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

employees who were recruited in preceding year but completed period of 300 days during the year under consideration have to be considered as new employees of the year under consideration for the purpose of section 80JJAA. On considering the said employees as new regular workmen, the appellant has satisfied ... case of Texas Instruments (supra), and hold that the assessee was entitled to claim deduction u/s 80JJAA of the Act in respect of the new employees who did not complete continuous employment of more than 300 days during their respective years of joining