← All Phrases

“additional employee cost”

DeductionsSection 80JJAASection 80JJAA36 judgments

The decision most relied on for additional employee cost is DIT v. HCL Infosystems Ltd. (144 Taxmann 492), cited in 45 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on additional employee cost

DIT v. HCL Infosystems Ltd.
144 Taxmann 492 · 2005 · High Court
45
citing judgments

Reimbursement of salary costs of employees is not taxable as Fees for Technical Services (FTS) under the Act. Additionally, for a fixed place Permanent Establishment (PE) or place of management to exist, business premises must be made available or a right to use them must be established.

ITO v. Kanchan Tara Exports
138 TTJ 592 · ITAT
13
citing judgments

An Assessing Officer must consider factors like quality, size, employee cost, administrative cost, interest cost, working capital cost, debt recovery cost, and quality factors when determining sale price. Failure to give due weightage to these can invalidate additions made on account of lower sale price.

Judgments citing additional employee cost

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Reliance Retail Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed, whereas the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4244/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (Vice President), SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR (Accountant Member)

Section 135Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 14ASection 250Section 37(1)Section 80GSection 80JSection 92C

which included deduction pertaining to earlier assessment years. The Assessing Officer held that deduction under section 80JJAA is allowable only in respect of additional employee cost relating to the relevant assessment year and restricted the deduction to Rs. 5,94,89,560/- while disallowing ... enhanced deduction remained unsubstantiated. The learned DR further submitted that the assessee had claimed deduction under section 80JJAA in respect of additional employee cost pertaining to earlier years, which according to the Assessing Officer was not allowable in the year under consideration. It was submitted that the Assessing Officer

Reliance Retail Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 8(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 3510/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

Section 135Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 14ASection 250Section 37(1)Section 80GSection 80JSection 92C

which included deduction pertaining to earlier assessment years. The Assessing Officer held that deduction under section 80JJAA is allowable only in respect of additional employee cost relating to the relevant assessment year and restricted the deduction to Rs. 5,94,89,560/- while disallowing ... enhanced deduction remained unsubstantiated. The learned DR further submitted that the assessee had claimed deduction under section 80JJAA in respect of additional employee cost pertaining to earlier years, which according to the Assessing Officer was not allowable in the year under consideration. It was submitted that the Assessing Officer

360 One Distribution Services Limited (Earlier Known As Iifl Wealth Capital Markets Ltd), Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 1, Thane

ITA 5282/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Pritesh MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80Section 80J

deduction under section 80-JJAA of the Act. The assessee submitted that an amount of Rs. 10,21,02,413/- was incurred as additional employee cost in respect of 757 new and regular workmen employed during the year. Accordingly, the assessee claimed a deduction ... under section 80-JJAA of the Act, being 30% of the additional employee cost. In support of its claim before the learned CIT(A), the assessee also furnished the report from the Chartered Accountant in Form 10DA dated 30.10.2019. 6. The learned CIT(A), vide impugned order, dismissed the ground

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

shall, subject to the conditions specified in sub-section (2), be allowed a deduction of an amount equal to thirty per cent of additional employee cost incurred in the course of such business in the previous year, for three assessment years including the assessment year relevant to the previous year ... date referred to in section 44ABgiving such particulars in the report as may be prescribed. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section,— (i) "additional employee cost" means the total emoluments paid or payable to additional employees employed during the previous year: Provided that in the case of an existing business

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

consideration also, Charchit Garg vs. ITO A.Y. 2023-24 there is no dispute regarding the eligibility of the assessee or the computation of additional employee cost and that all substantive conditions of section 80JJAA stand fully satisfied. It was further submitted that Form No. 10DA was filed ... substantive Charchit Garg vs. ITO A.Y. 2023-24 conditions prescribed under section 80JJAA of the Act and that the claim relates to additional employee cost incurred in the course of an eligible manufacturing business. There is also no dispute with regard to the eligibility of the assessee or the quantum

Schineler India Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dcitrg 15(3) (2), Mumbai

In the result, ground no. 6 raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 724/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18 Schindler India Pvt Ltd Dcit Schindler House, Main Street, Range 15(3) (2) Hiranandani Gardens, Powai, Vs. Mumbai Mumbai - 400076 (Pan: Aaecs1548J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Ms. Chandani Shah, Ms. Niddhi Agarwal & Ms. Riddhi Maru, Cas Revenue : Shri Ajay Chandra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.12.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Final Assessment Order Passed By National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi (Nfac) Vide Order No. Itba/Ast/S/143(3)/2021-22/1040015716(1) Dated 22.02.2022 U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”) Pursuant To The Directions Of Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel-2, Mumbai, (Drp) Vide Order No. Itba/Drp/F/144C(5)/2021-22/1039079646(1), Dated 25.01.2022, Passed U/S. 144C(5), For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Grounds Taken By Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: “Ground I. Legal Grounds

For Appellant: Ms. Chandani Shah, Ms. Niddhi Agarwal and Ms. Riddhi Maru, CAsFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92CSection 92C(3)

directions of the DRP) failed to appreciate and ought to have held that: a. the Appellant claimed the deduction u/s 80JJAA towards additional employee cost after fulfilling the conditions and requirements provided in section 80JJAA, b. the documents and evidence submitted by the Appellant along with Form 10DA clearly establish

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 11 of 40 8.7 It was further argued that the deduction claimed was strictly limited to 30% of the additional employee cost, as evident from the detailed computation filed before the authorities. The deduction was claimed only for the eligible year and in accordance with law. There

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 11 of 40 8.7 It was further argued that the deduction claimed was strictly limited to 30% of the additional employee cost, as evident from the detailed computation filed before the authorities. The deduction was claimed only for the eligible year and in accordance with law. There

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

Page 11 of 40 ITA No.652-653-980/Bang/2025 8.7 It was further argued that the deduction claimed was strictly limited to 30% of the additional employee cost, as evident from the detailed computation filed before the authorities. The deduction was claimed only for the eligible year and in accordance with law. There

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

Mantra Softech (India) Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. CIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1614/AHD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2021-22

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 80J

deductions pertained. As per the provisions of Section 80JJAA of the Act, the assessee was entitled to claim deduction of 30% of the additional employee cost in three years. The Ld. AR explained that the deduction Mantra Softech (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT Page 3 of 4 claimed

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

shall, subject to the conditions specified in sub-section (2), be allowed a deduction of an amount equal to thirty per cent of additional employee cost incurred in the course of such business in the previous year, for three assessment years including the assessment year relevant to the previous year ... Explanation to section 288 giving such particulars in the report as may be prescribed. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section,— (i) "additional employee cost" means the total emoluments paid or payable to additional employees employed during the previous year: Provided that in the case of an existing business

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

submitted that the assessee’s claim for deduction u/s 80JJAA for AY 2021-22 pertains to ‘additional employee cost’ incurred in AYs 2019-20 and 2020-21. The Ld. AR submitted that no new claim was made for AY 2021-22. The Ld. AR also submitted that Form 10DA

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

shall, subject to the conditions specified in sub-section (2), be allowed a deduction of an amount equal to thirty per cent. Of additional employee cost incurred in the course of such business in the previous year, for three assessment years including the assessment year relevant to the previous year

M/S Graviss Foods Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - Circle 7(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 3597/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jul 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh O. Rajora, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, Sr. D/R
Section 143(3)Section 44ASection 80J

satisfies the conditions prescribed u/s 80JJAA of the Act and accordingly is eligible to claim deduction of an amount equal to 30% additional employee cost incurred by it during the previous year and immediately preceding year to previous year; hence the CIT(A) ought to have allowed deduction of Rs.10

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

section 80JJAA of the Act, the appellant is entitled to claim a deduction of Rs. 13,80,23,106 representing 30% of additional employee cost incurred during the Financial Year ('FY') 2018-19, however, the appellant had inadvertently claimed a deduction amounting to Rs. 4,37,47,671 under section ... before the Ld. CIT(A). 3. The assessee submitted that he is entitled to deduction of Rs.13,80,23,106/- representing 30% of additional employee cost incurred during the FY 2018-19. However inadvertently claimed deduction amounting to Rs.4,27,47,671/- under section 80JJAA of the Act while fling

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

section 80JJAA of the Act, the appellant is entitled to claim a deduction of Rs. 13,80,23,106 representing 30% of additional employee cost incurred during the Financial Year ('FY') 2018-19, however, the appellant had inadvertently claimed a deduction amounting to Rs. 4,37,47,671 under section ... before the Ld. CIT(A). 3. The assessee submitted that he is entitled to deduction of Rs.13,80,23,106/- representing 30% of additional employee cost incurred during the FY 2018-19. However inadvertently claimed deduction amounting to Rs.4,27,47,671/- under section 80JJAA of the Act while fling

DCIT., Circle-1(1), Hyderabad vs. Creamline Dairy Products Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal ITA

ITA 1183/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA, K C Devdas And CA C Maheshwar ReddyFor Respondent: Sri Narender Kumar Naik, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80J

u/sec.80JJAA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for Rs.30,09,085/-. The assessee-company has claimed deduction u/sec.80JJAA of Rs.30,09,085/- towards additional employee cost. During the assessment proceeding, the assessee-company was asked to produce supporting evidences for the said claim. The assessee- 5 ITA.Nos.1156, 1157 & 1183/Hyd

Creamline Dairy Products Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal ITA

ITA 1157/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA, K C Devdas And CA C Maheshwar ReddyFor Respondent: Sri Narender Kumar Naik, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80J

u/sec.80JJAA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for Rs.30,09,085/-. The assessee-company has claimed deduction u/sec.80JJAA of Rs.30,09,085/- towards additional employee cost. During the assessment proceeding, the assessee-company was asked to produce supporting evidences for the said claim. The assessee- 5 ITA.Nos.1156, 1157 & 1183/Hyd

Creamline Dairy Products Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal ITA

ITA 1156/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA, K C Devdas And CA C Maheshwar ReddyFor Respondent: Sri Narender Kumar Naik, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80J

u/sec.80JJAA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for Rs.30,09,085/-. The assessee-company has claimed deduction u/sec.80JJAA of Rs.30,09,085/- towards additional employee cost. During the assessment proceeding, the assessee-company was asked to produce supporting evidences for the said claim. The assessee- 5 ITA.Nos.1156, 1157 & 1183/Hyd