← 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

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

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

Raniwala Jewellers Private Limited, Jaipur vs. ACIT/DCIT Cir-6, Jpr, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 10/JPR/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 May 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumar

For Appellant: Mr. Nikhilesh Kataria, C.A., Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Ld. DR
Section 10BSection 10B(8)Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 80J

return the assessee claimed Rs. 1,44,412/- as deduction u/s. 80JJA of the Act on account of additional employee cost incurred, but the report to be filed in Form No. 10DA as per Rule 19AB of the Rules was not uploaded/verified alongwith the return and tax audit report uploaded

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)

order to provide an incentive for the creation of new 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 ... 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

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

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)

order to provide an incentive for the creation of new 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 ... 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

Inno vs. Ource Services Private Limited, Mumbaivs.DCIT, 14(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3424/MUM/2024[AY 2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2025

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2021-22 Innovsource Services Pvt. Ltd., Dcit, 14(1)(1), 501, Jolly Board Tower 1, I-Think Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Vs. Techno Campus Kanjurmarg-East, Road, New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400042. Churchgate, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaeci 0979 D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: 06/01/2025
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 80J

80JJAA of the A u/s 80JJAA of the Act amounting to Rs.30,10,31,823/ amounting to Rs.30,10,31,823/- for the additional employee cost for the additional employee cost incurred, but restricted the claim to the extent of the restricted the claim to the extent of the restricted ... claim deduction of the additional Appellant is eligible to claim deduction of the additional Appellant is eligible to claim deduction of the additional employee cost incurred in the course of business and not does employee cost incurred in the course of business and not does employee cost incurred

Idfc First Bank Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Range Corporate Circle-2(2), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 221/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, C.A ""For Respondent: Shri R.Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 10(34)Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

substituted by the Finance Act 2016, with effect from 1st April 2017) provides for deduction of an amount of thirty percent of additional employee cost incurred during the previous year in the course of business. The provisions of section 80JJAA were subsequently amended vide Finance Act 2018, with effect from ... assessment year 2018-19 as per amended provisions of section 80JJAA of the Act. We noted that the facts and details regarding 30% additional employees cost incurred during the financial year 2016- 17 relevant to the assessment year 2017-18 is not available on record, so that the effect

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

disallowance of deduction u/s. 80JJAA of the act amounting to Rs.1,50,70,662/- that was claimed in respect of the additional employee cost. 3. Brief facts of the case leading to this issue are as under: 3.1 The assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing garments. The assessee

K N M Mills Private Limited, Coimbatore vs. ITO, Corp Ward, Coimbatore

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

ITA 1431/CHNY/2023[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 May 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1431/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2022-23 V. M/S.K N M Mills Pvt. Ltd., The Income Tax Officer, 584A, D.B.Road, Corporate Ward, R.S.Puram, Coimbatore. Coimbatore-641 002. [Pan: Aaack 8972 G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.Tarun, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 139Section 143(1)Section 44ASection 80J

Page No.6 of the Paper Book which reveals that Form No.10DA has been signed on 29.09.2022 for AY 2022-23 claiming deduction for additional employee cost of Rs.3,13,921/- and has generated UDIN. In such a scenario, we find that assessee in fact had uploaded Form No.10DA

M/S.Hdb Financial Services Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 177/AHD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 80J

during the year under consideration. b. What is allowed as the deduction - An amount equal to 30% of additional employee cost incurred in the course of business in the financial year is allowed as a deduction, for three consequent years including the year in which such employment is provided

M/S. Portfolio Fashions Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. CIT (A), Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1241/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Portfolio Fashions Pvt. Ltd., V. Cit (A) 5A, Jindal Mansion Delhi Dr. G. Deshmukh Marg Mumbai - 400026 Pan: Aadcp7858D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Hiro Rai Department Represented By : Shri H.M. Bhatt

Section 143(2)

ratio we observe that assessee has received percentage of commission lesser than the previous year turnover and also the assessee has declared additional employee cost compared to previous Page No. 13 M/s. Portfolio Fashions Pvt. Ltd., year, since these issues were not contested before us, we are not inclined

Jaquar and Company Private Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-19, Delhi

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

ITA 1985/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG (Judicial Member), DR. B.R.R. KUMAR (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 80J

additional ground no. 5 seeking allowability of further deduction of Rs. 76,28,552/- u/s. 80JJAA of the Act being 30% of the additional employee cost for second year, being the emoluments paid to the employees who got employed in FY 2016-17 but completed their 240 days of employment

Calibehr Business Support Services Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asst Director of Income Tax, CPC/ Asst Comm of Income Tax Circle-1(2)(1), Bangalor

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2019 – 20 is partly allowed

ITA 257/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am

For Appellant: Shri. Nitesh Joshi, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Agnes P. Thomas, DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 40Section 40A(7)Section 43

under Section 80JJAA of the Act. 4. As per the provisions of Section 80JJAA of the Act, 30% of additional employee cost incurred during the year can be claimed for each year for period of three Assessment Years, including the year in which the additional employee cost is incurred. However ... Accordingly, Form 10DA filed for AY 2018-19 stated an amount of Rs. 5,76,32,440/- representing deduction allowable in respect of additional employee cost incurred for the previous year relevant to AY 2018-19. Based on Form 10DA, the ITA No.3227/MUM/2022, 257,256/MUM/2023 A.Y.2018-19

Calibehr Business Support Services Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asst Director of Income Tax, CPC/ Asst Comm of Income Tax Circle-1(2)(1), Bangalor

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2019 – 20 is partly allowed

ITA 256/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am

For Appellant: Shri. Nitesh Joshi, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Agnes P. Thomas, DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 40Section 40A(7)Section 43

under Section 80JJAA of the Act. 4. As per the provisions of Section 80JJAA of the Act, 30% of additional employee cost incurred during the year can be claimed for each year for period of three Assessment Years, including the year in which the additional employee cost is incurred. However ... Accordingly, Form 10DA filed for AY 2018-19 stated an amount of Rs. 5,76,32,440/- representing deduction allowable in respect of additional employee cost incurred for the previous year relevant to AY 2018-19. Based on Form 10DA, the ITA No.3227/MUM/2022, 257,256/MUM/2023 A.Y.2018-19

Calibehr Business Support Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assessing Officer, National E-Assessement Centre, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2019 – 20 is partly allowed

ITA 3227/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am

For Appellant: Shri. Nitesh Joshi, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Agnes P. Thomas, DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 40Section 40A(7)Section 43

under Section 80JJAA of the Act. 4. As per the provisions of Section 80JJAA of the Act, 30% of additional employee cost incurred during the year can be claimed for each year for period of three Assessment Years, including the year in which the additional employee cost is incurred. However ... Accordingly, Form 10DA filed for AY 2018-19 stated an amount of Rs. 5,76,32,440/- representing deduction allowable in respect of additional employee cost incurred for the previous year relevant to AY 2018-19. Based on Form 10DA, the ITA No.3227/MUM/2022, 257,256/MUM/2023 A.Y.2018-19

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

80JJAA. It was further submitted that the Assessee is eligible for deduction under section 80JJAA in relation to the additional employee cost incurred during FY 2016-17 over a period of 3 years. A copy of the certificate from auditor in Form 10DA evidencing the claim of deduction under section

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

80JJAA. It was further submitted that the Assessee is eligible for deduction under section 80JJAA in relation to the additional employee cost incurred during FY 2016-17 over a period of 3 years. A copy of the certificate from auditor in Form 10DA evidencing the claim of deduction under section