← 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

Pivotree Solutions India Private Limited (Formerly Known As Bridge Sgi Solutions India Private Limited), Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 799/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

such as maintenance of books of accounts, direct and indirect tax compliances, litigations. 5. Once the transition phase was completed in March 2022 and new employees were also recruited, the accountants of the Appellant had revisited the income-tax portal in July 2022 and realized that an adverse order

Pivotree Solutions India Private Limited (Formerly Known As Bridge Sgi Solutions India Private Limited), Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 798/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

such as maintenance of books of accounts, direct and indirect tax compliances, litigations. 5. Once the transition phase was completed in March 2022 and new employees were also recruited, the accountants of the Appellant had revisited the income-tax portal in July 2022 and realized that an adverse order

Terrier Security Services India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 347/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Jha, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80J

Details of period of employment (no. of days) for the above said employees. d) Details of Pension (or) Provident fund paid to the new employees. (iii) The assessee vide letters dated 23.08.2019 and 29.08.2019 filed its submission, along with evidence supporting the claim of deduction under section 80JJAA which inter

Terrier Security Services India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 346/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Jha, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80J

Details of period of employment (no. of days) for the above said employees. d) Details of Pension (or) Provident fund paid to the new employees. (iii) The assessee vide letters dated 23.08.2019 and 29.08.2019 filed its submission, along with evidence supporting the claim of deduction under section 80JJAA which inter

Texas Instruments (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Ltu, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the revenue is dismissed and the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 852/BANG/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri. Percy Pardiwala, Sr. CounselFor Respondent: Shri. Sanjay Kumar S. K, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40Section 80JSection 92C

March, 31, 2008 1,105 131 FY 2007-08(AY 2008-09) 7. The details of the new employees in respect of whom the Assessee claimed deduction u/s.80JJAA of the Act are given at page 176 to 182 of paperbook. From a perusal of the said list and the report ... paid to new regular workmen who were employed during the previous year 1-4-2006 to 31-3-2007. All the 287 employees were new employees who joined during the FY 2006-07, on or after 12-6-2006 and therefore could not have put in service of 300 days

Joint Commisioner of Income Tax (Ltu), Bangalore vs. M/S Texas Instruments India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the revenue is dismissed and the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 831/BANG/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri. Percy Pardiwala, Sr. CounselFor Respondent: Shri. Sanjay Kumar S. K, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40Section 80JSection 92C

March, 31, 2008 1,105 131 FY 2007-08(AY 2008-09) 7. The details of the new employees in respect of whom the Assessee claimed deduction u/s.80JJAA of the Act are given at page 176 to 182 of paperbook. From a perusal of the said list and the report ... paid to new regular workmen who were employed during the previous year 1-4-2006 to 31-3-2007. All the 287 employees were new employees who joined during the FY 2006-07, on or after 12-6-2006 and therefore could not have put in service of 300 days

M/S Tata Elxsi Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Special Range-7, Bangalore

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

ITA 907/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Tata Elxsi Ltd., The Assistant Itpl Road, Commissioner Of Hoody, Income Tax, Whitefield Road, Ao As Special Range 7, Bangalore – 560 048. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaact7872Q Appellant Respondent : Shri Padam Chand Assessee By Khincha, Ca : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 21-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-02-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal By The Assessee Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 25.03.2019 By Ld.Cit(A)-7, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2013-14 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. General Ground 1.1 The Learned Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax- Circle 7(1)(1) (`A0'), Bangalore Has Erred In Passing The Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (`The Act') In The Manner Passed By Him & The Commissioner Of Income Tax-(Appeals)-7 (`Cit(A)') Has Erred In Partly Confirming The Said Assessment Order. The Said Order To The Extent Prejudicial To The Appellant Is Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed. 2. Grounds Relating To Disallowance Of Deduction Under Section 80Jjaa Of The Act 2.1. The Learned Ao Has Erred In Disallowing Deduction Under Section 80Jjaa Amounting To Rs. 13,14,23,244/-

For Respondent: Shri Padam Chand
Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 28Section 37Section 80J

eligible for deduction. “5.1.We note that the 1st of objection of Ld.AO regarding non- satisfaction with respect to additional wages paid to new employees in the 1st year of employment is concerned, this Tribunal has expressed following view in case of Texas Instruments (India) Pvt.Ltd vs ACIT reported in (supra ... condition for grant of deduction u/s.80JJAA of the Act is not satisfied with reference to additional wages paid to new employees in the first year of their employment, then the additional wages paid to such new employees will not allowed in the second and third Assessment Years also. As pointed

DCIT, Circle-12(1), New Delhi vs. Infrasoft Technologies Ltd., Mumbai

Accordingly, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 1761/DEL/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Nov 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Dcit, Vs. Infrasoft Technologies Ltd, Circle-12(1), Unit No. 86 & 87, Sdf Iii, New Delhi Seepz Midc, Andheri East, Mumbai Pan: Aaacb2817R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ramesh Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 10ASection 143Section 80H

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

M/S. Saic India Private Limited, Noida vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6842/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jun 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Saic India Private Limited, Vs. Dcit, C/O. Wipro Energy It Services India Circle-7(1), Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi A-67, Sector-57, Noida Pan: Aaaci6192A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Manoneet Dalal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Pal, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 145Section 234BSection 92Section 92C

third party recruitment agency, access fee to various job sites like naukari.com etc. and ₹ 16,01,153/- for imparting raining to the new employees who have recently joined and on job training to existing employees, which have otherwise been not disputed by the AO/DRP, recruitment of employees for efficient profit