Section 10AA of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.144

Section 10AA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 corresponds to section 144 (Special provisions in respect of newly established Units in Special Economic Zones) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 144 of the 2025 Act

Correspondence checked against the ICAI tabular mapping of the two Acts and the BharatTax.co section commentary.

The decision most relied on for Section 10AA is Joint Investments Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (372 ITR 694), cited in 803 of the 857 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 10AA

Joint Investments Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT
372 ITR 694 · 2015 · High Court
803
citing judgments

Disallowance under section 14A of the Income Tax Act cannot exceed the actual amount of exempt income earned by the assessee. This principle also applies when computing book profits under section 115JB.

CIT v. Yokogawa India Ltd.
391 ITR 274 · 2017 · Supreme Court
290
citing judgments

Deduction under Section 10A or 10AA of the Income-tax Act is computed on the profits of the eligible unit without first setting off losses from other units or non-eligible units. Conversely, losses incurred by an eligible unit are allowed to be set off against the assessee's other taxable business profits.

Earthmoving Equipment Service Corporation v. DCIT 22(2), Mumbai
84 Taxmann.com 51 · 2017 · ITAT
263
citing judgments

A penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars cannot be deleted merely due to technical defects in the penalty notice, such as not ticking the specific default, if the assessee understood the charges.

CIT v. Taikisha Engineering India Ltd.
370 ITR 338 · 2015 · High Court
252
citing judgments

The disallowance under Section 14A of the Income-tax Act, read with Rule 8D, cannot exceed the actual exempt income earned by the assessee in the relevant previous year. If no exempt income is earned, no disallowance under Section 14A can be made.

Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh v. CIT
239 ITR 587 · 1999 · Supreme Court
243
citing judgments

The Supreme Court lays down principles for deducting tax at source (TDS) under Section 195 on payments to non-residents, including aspects of income deemed taxable in India and the application of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAAs) under Section 90.

CIT v. Gem Plus Jewellery India Ltd.
330 ITR 175 · 2011 · High Court
207
citing judgments

Disallowances made under various sections, such as for PF/ESIC contributions, result in an increase in business profits, and these enhanced profits are eligible for deduction under Sections 10A and 10AA. Similarly, gains from foreign exchange fluctuations directly linked to export sales are also eligible for deduction under Section 10A.

CIT v. Atul Mohan Bindal
9 SCC 589 · 2009 · Supreme Court
200
citing judgments

The Supreme Court clarifies the scope of penalty under Section 271(1)(c), holding that for its applicability, conditions stated in the provision must strictly exist, and making an incorrect claim in law does not automatically amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.

ITO v. TechSpan India (P) Ltd.
92 Taxmann.com 361 · 2018 · Supreme Court
194
citing judgments

Reassessment under Section 147/148 is invalid if it constitutes a mere change of opinion by the Assessing Officer without any fresh tangible material, especially after the assessee made a full and truthful disclosure during the original scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3).

CIT v. HCL Technologies Ltd.
404 ITR 719 · 2018 · Supreme Court
174
citing judgments

When calculating deductions under sections like 10A or 10AA, any expenses or items reduced from 'export turnover' in the numerator must also be reduced from 'total turnover' in the denominator to ensure consistent application of the deduction formula.

616 (Raj.) and 9. CIT v. Hemla Embroidery Mills (P) Ltd.
217 Taxmann 207 · 2013 · High Court
170
citing judgments

Prior to the insertion of Explanation 2 to Section 36(1)(va) of the Income-tax Act, there was an ambiguity regarding the due date for payment of employees' contribution to provident fund and ESI. The ambiguity was whether the due date was as per the respective Acts or the due date for filing the assessee's return of income.

Judgments on Section 10AA

DCIT Cen Cir 5(2), Mumbai vs. Gia Export, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby ordered to be dismissed

ITA 6350/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6350/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit, Central Circle-5(2) बिधम/ M/S. Gia Export R.No. 1908, 19Th Floor, Air 70/70A, Laxmi Premises, 1St Vs. India Building, Nariman Floor, Shaikh Memon Street Point, Mumbai-21. Zaveri Bazar, Mumbai- 400002. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aagfg3116R (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Saurabh Deshpande (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Reepal Tralshawala(Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 01.05.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 27.06.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 18.07.2016 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 53, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2012- 13. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds:- “1. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Ld. Cit(A) Was Justified In Allowing Appeal Of The Assessee Without Appreciating That The Decision Of The Itat, Jaipur Bench In The Case Of Dcit Vs. Goenka Diamonds & Jewellers Ltd. In Ita. No.509/Jp/2011 Dtd. 31.01.2012 Has Not Been Accepted By The Department At Jaipur & Appeal To The Hon’Ble Rajasthan

For Appellant: Shri Reepal Tralshawala(AR)For Respondent: Shri Saurabh Deshpande (DR)
Section 10ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 2

DCIT Cen Cir 5(2), Mumbai vs. Auro Gold Jewellery P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is hereby ordered to be dismissed

ITA 6349/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6349/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dy. Commissioner Of बिधम/ M/S. Auro Gold Jewellery Income Tax, Central Circle- Pvt. Ltd. 70/70A, Laxmi Vs. 5(2), Room No. 1908, 19Th Premises, 1St Floor, Shaikh Floor, Air India Building Memon Street, Zaveri Bazar, Nariman Point, Mumbai-21. Mumbai-400002. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacca3860H (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Reepal G. Tralshawala (Ar) Revenue By: Mrs. Sunita Billa (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 01.05.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 27.06.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 18.07.2016 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-53, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2012-13. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - 1. "Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Ld Cit(A) Was Justified In Allowing Appeal Of The Assesses Without Appreciating That The Decision Of The 1Tat, Jaipur Bench In The A.Y. 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Reepal G. Tralshawala (AR)For Respondent: Mrs. Sunita Billa (DR)
Section 10ASection 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)

ITO 2(3)(3), Mumbai vs. Transtec Overseas P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby ordered to be dismissed

ITA 5308/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.5308/Mum/2015 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) The Income Tax Officer बिधम/ M/S. Transtec Overseas Pvt. Ltd. 70, Podar Chambers, 3Rd 2(3)(3), Room No. 555, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Floor, S.A. Brelvi Marg, Road, New Marine Lines, Fort, Mumbai-400001 Mumbai-400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccp2309N (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Ashish Kumar (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Vijay Mehta सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 11.05.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11.05.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 27.08.2015 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-6 Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The Ay.2009-10 In Which The Penalty Levied By The Ao Has Been Order To Be Deleted. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - 1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Allowing Relief To The Assessee To The Extent Impugned In The Grounds Enumerated Below:

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Kumar (DR)
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)