← All Phrases

“chapter VIA deductions”

DeductionsChapter VI-AChapter VI-A29 judgments

The decision most relied on for chapter VIA deductions is PCIT v. Wipro Ltd. (140 Taxmann.com 223), cited in 192 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on chapter VIA deductions

PCIT v. Wipro Ltd.
140 Taxmann.com 223 · 2022 · Supreme Court
192
citing judgments

Exemption provisions under Chapter III, such as Section 10B(8), must be interpreted strictly, and any claim for such exemptions must be made in the return of income. The principles governing Chapter III (incomes not forming part of total income) differ from those for Chapter VIA (deductions in computing total income).

ITO v. Kewal Construction
354 ITR 13 · 2013 · High Court
44
citing judgments

When a disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Income-tax Act increases the profit of the assessee, deductions under Chapter VIA of the Act should be allowed on this enhanced profit.

CIT v. Sheth Developers (P) Ltd.
25 Taxmann.com 173 · 2012 · High Court
43
citing judgments

Deduction under Chapter VIA of the Income-tax Act is not barred merely because unexplained money was found, provided the assessee can explain the source of such money.

CIT v. Kribhco
349 ITR 618 · 2012 · High Court
18
citing judgments

Section 14A, read with Rule 8D, is not applicable to income deductible under Chapter VIA of the Income-tax Act, such as income eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d).

CIT v. Shirke Construction Equipment Pvt. Ltd.
291 ITR 380 · 2007 · Supreme Court
14
citing judgments

Brought forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation of earlier years must be set off against the income of the current year before calculating deductions under Chapter VIA of the Act, including those under Section 10A.

Judgments citing chapter VIA deductions

Mahatma Phule Gramin Bigarsheti Sahakar Pat Sanstha Ltd, Kolhapur vs. PCIT-1, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1049/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19 Mahatma Phule Gramin Bigarsheti Pcit-1, Pune Sahakar Pat Sanstha Vs. A/P Hattiwade, Ajara, Kolhapur – 416505 Pan: Aaaam2608K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None (Written Submission Filed) Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 09-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 09-01-2026 O R D E R

For Appellant: None (written submission filed)For Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 80ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(2)(d)

High Court has not dealt with the provisions of section 263, changes in law by retrospective or clarificatory amendments, eligibility conditions under Chapter VIA deductions etc. He submitted that the assessee’s reliance on the decision of the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Rajya Rakhiv Police ... High Court has not dealt with revisional jurisdiction u/s 263, changes in law by retrospective or clarificatory amendments, eligibility conditions under Chapter VIA deductions etc. In the instant case the Ld. PCIT has only dealt with the applicability of section 80AC and the said action of the Ld. 15 PCIT

Vinod Kumar Gupta, Jhansi vs. ITO, Ward-2(3)(1), Jhansi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 389/AGR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Agra26 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh**

For Appellant: Shri Anurag Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 271(1)(b)Section 69A

## **INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AGRA BENCH "SMC": AGRA BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER** (Through virtual hearing) ITA Nos. 367

Satinder Paul Through L/H Neelam Saini, Pinjore vs. Income Tax Officer, Panchkula

In the result, the ground no

ITA 136/CHANDI/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SH. SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Smt. Neelam Dhiman, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR
Section 10Section 10(10)Section 143(1)

year 2016. The appellant had received Voluntary Retirement benefits and filed the return of income declaring total income at Rs.57,86,720/- after Chapter VIA deductions and claimed rebate u/s. 89 of the I.T. Act, 1961. Accordingly, the CPC, Bengaluru has processed the return, treating the VR benefit as part

Veena Singh, Gwalior vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(3), Gwalior

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 324/AGR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Agra29 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 139(4)Section 142(1)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 253(3)Section 68

capital under Section 68. 2 | P a g e Rs.1,13,000/- as unexplained unsecured loan under Section 68 r.w.s. 115BBE. After allowing Chapter VIA deductions, the total assessed income was determined at Rs.1,09,52,440/-. 4. Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before ld. CIT(Appeals), who dismissed assessee

Vinayak Bhalchandra Randive, Thane vs. ITO Ward 3(4) Thane, Thane

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

ITA 3005/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 254(1)Section 80CSection 80DSection 80T

under section 80TTA of the Act despite observing that the tax was computed under the old regime. Thus, the aforesaid Chapter VIA deductions aggregating to Rs. 85,000/- may be allowed. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and as per the law, the learned Commissioner

Vinayak Bhalchandra Randive, Thane vs. ITO Ward 3(4), Thane

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

ITA 2991/MUM/2025[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 254(1)Section 80CSection 80DSection 80T

under section 80TTA of the Act despite observing that the tax was computed under the old regime. Thus, the aforesaid Chapter VIA deductions aggregating to Rs. 85,000/- may be allowed. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and as per the law, the learned Commissioner

Satish Kumar Saini, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Alwar

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

ITA 1526/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Apr 2025AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, C.A. (Thr. V.C.)For Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 127Section 144Section 148Section 151Section 69A

assessee. 11. On the facts and circumstances of the case, it is hereby prayed for deleting the addition of Rs 75000.00 towards Chapter VIA deductions as the assessee was never asked for evidences of same. It is thus against principles of natural justice to make the addition without providing reasonable

Shyam Sunder Ravinuthala, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-10(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1232/HYD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1232/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Shyam Sundar Vs. Income Tax Officer Ravinuthala Ward-10(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan :Amvpr6998K] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Mohd Afzal, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Srikanth Reddy Y, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 22/01/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 28/01/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30.09.2024 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Ld.Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Pertaining To A.Y.2016-17. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, A Salaried Employee Filed His Return Of Income For The A.Y.2016-17 On 31.03.2017, Declaring Total Income Of Rs.8,33,600/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass To Verify ‘Whether Contract

For Appellant: Mohd Afzal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Srikanth Reddy Y, DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

furnish any evidences towards various expenses debited into Profit & Loss account. Similarly, the assessee could not furnish relevant evidences in support of Chapter VIA deductions. Therefore, the Ld.CIT(A), after considering relevant facts has rightly sustained the additions made by the Assessing Officer, and therefore, their order should be upheld ... balance addition of Rs.35,87,635/- is hereby deleted. 9. In so far as addition of Rs.1,50,000/- towards Chapter VIA deduction, the assessee could not file any evidences, therefore, in the absence of any evidences, additions made by the Assessing Officer is confirmed. 8 Shyam Sunder Ravinuthala

Mridula Jha Jena, Mumbai vs. International Tax Ward, 3(1)(1), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4844/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra/Ms. SnigdhaFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 234BSection 270ASection 5(2)Section 9(1)(ii)

section 9(1)(ii) and therefore the same has not been offered to tax. The assessee also filed additional evidence in support of Chapter VIA deductions claimed. The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance made towards Chapter VIA deduction based on the evidence filed before him by the assessee. With regard

Spectrum Talent Management Private Limited, Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, CPC Bangalore

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

ITA 3313/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.3313/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21 बनाम Spectrum Talent Management Dcit Private Limited, Vs. Cpc, Bangalore, B-46, Retreat Apartments, 20, Karnataka. 1.P. Extension, Delhi. Pan No. Aarcs4776M अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 80ASection 80J

case of CIT Vs. M/s Empact Technology Services Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.228/2013 dated 11.7.2018, held that the assessee is entitled for chapter VIA deductions on the enhanced profits on account of disallowance made u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 4. On the other hand, the Ld. DR placed

Dayal Singh, Vill Fatehpur Po Burewala vs. ITO Ward-1, Panchkula

In the result, the ground no

ITA 519/CHANDI/2024[AY 2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Dec 2024

Bench: Shri Sanjay Gargआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 519/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 बनाम Dayal Singh, The Ito, Vill Fatehpur Ward -1, Po Burewala Panchkula Distt.Amabla 134204 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Acdps7697G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Y.R. Saini, Adv. राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Sh. Vivek Vardhan, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 11.11.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 03.12.2024 आदेश/Order The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 20.03.2024 Passed By The Ld. Addl. / Jcit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assess Ee In This Appeal H As Taken Foll Owing Groun Ds Of Appeal: 1 That In The F Acts & Circumstance Of The Case The Id. Addl/Jcit (A)-9 Mumbai Of Cit (A)( Nfac) Has Erred In Law By Placing Reliance On Judgement Of Hon'Ble Apex Court In The Case Of Maji Sinneman Vs Reddy

For Appellant: Shri Y.R. Saini, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan, JCIT
Section 10Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 270A

year 2016. The appellant had received Voluntary Retirement benefits and filed the return of income declaring total income at Rs.57,86,720/- after Chapter VIA deductions and claimed rebate u/s. 89 of the I.T. Act, 1961. Accordingly, the CPC, Bengaluru has processed the return, treating the VR benefit as part

Naresh Kumar Kamboj, Zirakpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Panchkula

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 337/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Pandey, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjeet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 143(1)

year 2016. The appellant had received Voluntary Retirement benefits and filed the return of income declaring total income at Rs.57,86,720/- after Chapter VIA deductions and claimed rebate u/s. 89 of the I.T. Act, 1961. Accordingly, the CPC, Bengaluru has processed the return, treating the VR benefit as part

Sh. Sohan Lal, Pinjore vs. ITO, Ward -3, Panchkula

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 286/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Smt. Neelam Dhiman, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 10(10)Section 25F

year 2016. The appellant had received Voluntary Retirement benefits and filed the return of income declaring total income at Rs.57,86,720/- after Chapter VIA deductions and claimed rebate u/s. 89 of the I.T. Act, 1961. Accordingly, the CPC, Bengaluru has processed the return, treating the VR benefit as part

Dheeraj Tolaram Talreja, Mumbai vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 3359/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Aug 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2020-21 Mr. Dheeraj Tolaram Income Tax Officer, Talreja International Taxation, A – 605, Ward 4(1)(1) Oberoi Esquire, Air India Building, Oberoi Garden City, Nariman Point, Vs. Goregaon East, Mumbai- 400021. Mumbai- 400063. Pan: Adopt3185J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Anil Sant - Addl. CIT D.R
Section 139(1)Section 234Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 250Section 5(1)Section 6(1)Section 6(6)Section 64

Income/(Loss) from House Property (2,00,000) Income from Other Source 4,10,084 Gross Total Income 2,85,02,971 Less: Chapter VIA deductions (1,85,000) Net Total income 2,83,17,970 Tax liability on above net income 1,08,00,258 5 Mr. Dheeraj Tolaram

Motherson Sumi Systems Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 2054/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Mar 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri K.M. Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR
Section 108(4)Section 10BSection 10B(1)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 234BSection 271(1)(e)Section 92D

applicable to the assessee’s case as these decisions are rendered in the context of interpretation of “derived from” under Chapter VIA deductions which is different from “derived by an undertaking” for claiming exemption under section 10A/ 10B of the Act. 8. We have heard the Ld. Representatives

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1(1), Mangaluru vs. Karnataka Bank Ltd., Mangaluru

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for AYs 2016-17 and

ITA 964/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S. Ananthan, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

averages as provided by the assessee) 02 | 7.5% of the total income before deduction u/s 36(1)(viia) Rs.61,56,60,417 and Chapter VIA deductions 03 | Deduction allowable u/s 36(1)(viia) Rs.103,71,52,885 04 | Deduction claimed u/s 36(1)(viia

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1(1), Mangaluru vs. Karnataka Bank Ltd., Mangaluru

ITA 963/BANG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD

Karnataka Bank Ltd, Mangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Mangalore

ITA 877/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Feb 2024AY 2017-18
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

ITA Nos.876 & 877/Bang/2023 & 963 & 964/Bang/2023 ORDER Per Bench These appeals are filed by the assessee & revenue against the separate orders

Karnataka Bank Ltd, Mangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mangalore

ITA 876/BANG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Feb 2024AY 2016-17
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

ITA Nos.876 & 877/Bang/2023 & 963 & 964/Bang/2023 ORDER Per Bench These appeals are filed by the assessee & revenue against the separate orders

Balalji Lifestyle Realtors P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 7(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3172/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3172/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Balaji Lifestyle बिधम/ Acit, Central Circle-7(1) Realtors Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai. Vs. 118/120, Ashoka House Zaveri Baazar, Mumbai- 400002. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcb0234H (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri N. M. Porwal (Adv) Revenue By: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 01/11/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/11/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-49, Mumbai Dated 02.03.2017 For The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. Ground No. 1 Is General In Nature So Does Not Require Any Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri N. M. Porwal (Adv)For Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha (Sr
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 288ASection 69B

discussed above Gross Total Income 16,34,85,656/- Less: Chapter VIA Deductions --- Net Total Income 16,34,85,656/- Rounded off u/s 288A 16,34,85,660/- 5. Thereafter, the AO issued impugned notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 29.03.2014 conveying his desire to reopen the assessment