“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

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

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

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

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

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

Jubilant Foodworks Limited, Noida vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Noida

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

ITA 184/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Sh. M. Balaganesh & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2022-23 Jubilant Food Works Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Limited Plot No. 1A Sector Income Tax, Circle – 5 (1) 16 A Gautam Buddha Nagar (1), Noida Uttar Pradesh 201301 Pan No. Aabcd 1821 C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. K M Gupta, Advocate Ms. Shruti Khimata, Ca Respondent By Sh. Jitender Singh, Cit Dr

Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 80Section 80ASection 80J

reproduced the section 80JJAA of the Act and the interpretation of word “shall” as under: “…. [80JJA. Deduction in respect of employment of new employees- (1) Where the gross total income of an assessee to whom section 44B applies, includes any profits and gains derived from business, there shall, subject

Sbi Life Insurance Company Limited, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), NFAC, Delhi, Mumbai

In the result both the appeals filed by the assessee for the years under consideration stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4096/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

Section 139Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153Section 153(4)Section 80JSection 92C

available on record. We are therefore of opinion that the issue needs to be remanded to Ld.AO to verify these details in terms of new employees having satisfied the 240 days criteria during the year. 6.3 We direct assessee to provide all details regarding number of employees, number of new

Sbi Life Insurance Company Limited, Mumbai vs. Commissioner on Income Tax (Appeal), Mumbai

In the result both the appeals filed by the assessee for the years under consideration stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4095/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

Section 139Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153Section 153(4)Section 80JSection 92C

Iifl Samasta Finance Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 18/BANG/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Jun 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2023-24 Iifl Samasta Finance Limited 110/3, Lalbagh Main Road Krishnappa Layout Dcit Vs. Bangalore 560 027 Circle 3(1)(1) Bangalore Pan No :Aaacc4577H Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Sri Gowthama H.V., A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Srinandini Das, D.R

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 44ASection 80J

further, it is apposite here to mention the relevant provisions of the Act for ease of reference & record: - 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

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)

employment, the Act intends to offer a deduction equal to 30% of the additional employee cost incurred by the assessee for the employment of new employees and the above provisions explicitly allow the said deduction to be claimed for three consecutive assessment years, starting from the year in which such

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

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

ITA 2721/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

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)

DCIT-2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Health Prime Services (India) Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6438/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 10Section 10ASection 143(1)Section 2Section 80GSection 80J

that assessee claimed deduction under section 80G in respect of donations eligible, section 80JJAA in respect of the additional cost of the employment of new employees and section 10AA of the act, on eligible profits of the undertaking. It was noted that assessee was in the 12th year

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. M/S Infrasoft Technologies Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5769/MUM/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Tarang Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR

Section 10Section 10ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 254

invested again and new equipment's, furniture, computers etc. were purchased and fresh capital was pumped in, and the appellant also employed 28 new employees between 1.1.2000 and 31.3.2000 for the new export unit in FY 1999-2000, relevant AY 2000-01 suggests that a new unit was established ... Exchange Limited on 23/09/1999, invoice was also raised 18/01/2000 and foreign exchange and remittance was also received on 11/02/2000 and a good number of new employees were recruited in last three month of FY 1999-2000 and therefore deduction u/s 10A would initiate from AY 2000-2001. Accordingly

Evaluationz India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, we do not find any reason to uphold the orders of the learned lower authorities confirming the disallowance of Rs

ITA 1103/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, Jt.CIT(DR), ITAT, Bengaluru

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250Section 69C

Page 9 of 12 employees they wish to have their antecedents checked for the proper employment. This process is called background verification of the new employees. This activity is carried out because no employees with fake or false information is selected by the clients. The comprehensive background verification process

M/S. Unipres India Pvt. Ltd., Kanchipuram vs. Addl./JCIT (A), Thiruvananthapuram

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2471/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2471/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-2019) M/S.Unipres India Private Limited, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Rns 6, Sipcot Industrial Growth Income, Center, Corporate Circle 3(1) Vadakupattu Post, Chennai. Oragadam, Kanchipuram 603 204. [Pan: Aaacu 9830B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. S P Chidambaram, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Ms Kavitha, Irs, Addl. Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 21.11.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.11.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

For Appellant: Shri. S P Chidambaram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Kavitha, IRS, Addl. CIT

Section 143(1)

persons responsible for handling the direct and indirect taxation left the organization starting from the Assistant Manager from 8th April, 2021 onwards. Subsequently, new employees were replaced in place of erstwhile employees and the new employees has not clearly understood the assessment order received by the company. Hence, there

Thomas Chacko, Kochi vs. The DCIT Kochi Circle 1(1), Kochi

ITA 751/COCH/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Oct 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri V. Rajashekaran, CAFor Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R

Section 250Section 40Section 80A(2)Section 80CSection 80J

incentive for employment generation and provides for deduction from income from business of an assessee for the employment of new employees by the assessee. This deduction is provided in order to promote employment generation in the country. Thus, the deduction has to be restricted to the business income under overall

Sri.Thomas Chacko Proprietor of Group Mukkadan, Kcohi vs. ACIT Ward-2, Kochi

ITA 326/COCH/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Oct 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri V. Rajashekaran, CAFor Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R

Section 250Section 40Section 80A(2)Section 80CSection 80J

Sri.Thomas Chacko Proprietor of Group Mukkadan, Kcohi vs. ACIT, Kochi

ITA 325/COCH/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Oct 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri V. Rajashekaran, CAFor Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R

Section 250Section 40Section 80A(2)Section 80CSection 80J

Shivalik Prints Ltd., New Delhi vs. JCIT, Special Range-8, New Delhi

In the result, assessees’ appeals in ITA nos

ITA 8136/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraassessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 80Section 80J

claim of deduction u/s 80JJAA for Rs.35,78,377/- as per the original grounds of appeal. 1.3 Deduction u/s 80JJAA relates to employment of new employees in Factories and was introduced to incentivize the employment in the country. As per the provisions of section 80JJAA applicable in this year ... should be at least 100. In the case of an existing undertaking, having a minimum of at least hundred employees, the total number of new employees should be at least ten per cent. more than the existing number of employees. The deduction in such cases would be allowed

M/S. Shivalik Prints Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, assessees’ appeals in ITA nos

ITA 2296/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraassessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 80Section 80J

Indira Gandhi Memorial Trust, Nellikuzhy, Kothamangalam vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemption), Ernakulam

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 54/COCH/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Sri.P.T.Joy, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 269SSection 271D

submitted that it is the normal practice of the various institutions to collect some security deposits from the employees, who are appointed as their new employees and all the details about the employees 6 ITA No.165 & 54/Coch/2024. Indira Gandhi Memorial Trust. were furnished before the AO and in fact

Indira Gandhi Memorial Trust, Nellikuzhy P.O vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Ernakulam

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 165/COCH/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Sri.P.T.Joy, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 269SSection 271D

The Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara vs. M/S. Gujarat State Electricity Co. Ltd., Baroda

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 854/AHD/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Sept 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2006-07 The Dcit, Cir.1(1)(1) Gujarat State Electricity Co. Ltd. Vadodara. Vs Sardar Patel Vidyut Bhavan Race Course Circle Baroda 390 007. Pan : Aaacg 6864 F (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri Manish J Shah & Shri Jimi Patel, Ar Revenue By : Shri Kamlesh Makwana Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20/06/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/09/2024 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Guptathis Is Revenue’S Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(A)-1, Vadodara Dated 19.01.2016 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act” For Short) For The Assessment Year 2006-07. 2. The Solitary Ground Raised In The Appeal Of The Revenue Reads As Under:

For Respondent: Shri Kamlesh Makwana CIT-DR

Section 147Section 250Section 43B

were also taken over by it. Naturally, the provision for leave encashment shown in the balance sheet includes the provision for leave encashment of new employees taken over by the appellant which stood at Rs.5874.34 lakhs and it had been adjusted against the opening P & L Account as an extra ... were also taken over by it. Naturally, the provision for leave encashment shown in the balance sheet includes the provision for leave encashment of new employees taken over by the appellant which stood at Rs.5874.34 lakhs and it had been adjusted against the opening P & L Account as an extra

Colgate-Palmolive (India) Limited, Mumbai vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax -6, Mumbai

ITA 2645/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Hon'Bleι.Τ.Α. No. 2645/Mum/2024

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry & Shri Madhur Agarwal, A/RsFor Respondent: Ms. Madhu Malati Ghosh, CIT, D/R

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80GSection 80J

Donations to certain funds, charitable institutions, etc for INR 1 5,042,600/- and under section 80JJAA of the Act for employment of new employees for INR 7,667,132/-. In relation to section 80JJAA we have claimed INR 4,711,690 as deduction carry forward

Aquarelle India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 834/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Padam Chand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian .S, JCIT (DR)

Section 143(2)Section 234ASection 80J

learned AO had erred in disallowing the claiming deduction under section 80JJAA on the premise that (i) there were no new employees employed during the previous year; and (ii) the deduction claimed under section 80JJAA for the assessment years 2016-17 and 2017-18 were disallowed