Section 80JJAA of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.146

Section 80JJAA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 corresponds to section 146 (Deduction in respect of additional employee cost) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 146 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 80JJAA is CIT v. G.M. Knitting Industries (P.) Ltd. (376 ITR 456), cited in 221 of the 275 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 80JJAA

CIT v. G.M. Knitting Industries (P.) Ltd.
376 ITR 456 · 2015 · Supreme Court
221
citing judgments

The requirement to file a certificate or form (e.g., Form 10CCB, 10-IC) along with the return of income for claiming a deduction (e.g., under sections 80-IB, 115BAA) is directory regarding its timing. Such a deduction is allowable if the requisite form is filed before the final order of assessment, as procedural requirements should not override substantive benefits.

Apex Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT
135 Taxmann.com 286 · 2022 · Supreme Court
148
citing judgments

Expenditure incurred by pharmaceutical companies on freebies provided to medical practitioners is not deductible under Explanation 1 to Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, as such gifting is prohibited by the Medical Council Regulations, 2002. The court also held that what is directly prohibited by law cannot be indirectly evaded through contrivance.

Orissa State Warehousing Corpn v. CIT
237 ITR 589 · 1999 · Supreme Court
114
citing judgments

A fiscal statute must be interpreted strictly based on its plain language, without substituting judicial impressions for legislative intent. Exemptions and exclusions within such statutes must also be construed strictly and cannot be extended through interpretation.

CIT v. Tara Agencies
292 ITR 444 · 2007 · Supreme Court
80
citing judgments

When interpreting fiscal legislation, courts must adhere strictly to the plain and unambiguous language of the statute, without introducing intendment, equity, or words not present in the text, irrespective of perceived hardship. The legislative intent must be gathered solely from what has been said and not said in the statutory language.

Best Trading and Agencies Limited v. DCIT
119 Taxmann.com 129 · 2020 · High Court
45
citing judgments

The computation provisions for long-term capital gains, including the benefit of indexation under sections 45, 48, and 112, are applicable when determining book profits under section 115JB(5) for Minimum Alternate Tax, unless explicitly overridden, ensuring the 'real income' is taxed.

Form No. 10B. In Trust For Reaching The Unreached Through Trustee v. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Ahmedabad
126 Taxmann.com 77 · 2021 · High Court
34
citing judgments

A trust substantially satisfying the conditions for exemption under Section 11 cannot be denied that exemption solely due to a procedural delay in furnishing the audit report in Form No. 10, as the submission of the form is considered a procedural rather than a mandatory condition.

CIT v. Bhor Industries Ltd.
264 ITR 180 · 2003 · High Court
33
citing judgments

Expenditure that has been deferred in the books of accounts is to be treated as revenue expenditure in the year in which it is incurred, irrespective of its treatment in the books of account.

Digital Equipment India Ltd. v. DCIT
103 TTJ 329 · 2006 · ITAT
27
citing judgments

A mere substantial profit does not inherently indicate an arrangement to earn profits beyond ordinary levels to abuse tax concessions under Section 80-IA(9) or (10). The Assessing Officer must provide specific evidence of such an arrangement.

PCIT v. Shreeji Prints (P.) Ltd.
282 Taxmann 464 · 2021 · Supreme Court
24
citing judgments
A.V. Fernandez v. State of Kerala
8 STC 561 · 1957 · Supreme Court
21
citing judgments

Taxing statutes must be strictly construed, and their clear language does not allow for inference or equity. Exemptions and exclusions must also be strictly construed and cannot be extended by interpretation.

Judgments on Section 80JJAA

G4S Secure Solutions (India) Private Limited, West Delhi, India vs. Central Processing Center, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5285/DEL/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 May 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2023-24 G4S Secure Solutions (India) Vs Cpc, Private Limited, Bengaluru. 9Th Floor, Tower-B, Good Earth Trade Tower, Sector-62, Bhondsi So (168), Gurugram, Haryana – 122 102. Pan: Aaacg1625Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Kapoor, Ms Ananya Kapoor & Shri Shivam Yadav, Advocates Revenue By : Shri Surender Pal, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 12.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.05.2025 Order Per Vimal Kumar, Jm: The Appeal By The Appellant/Assessee Is Against The Order Dated 23.09.2024 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-6, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Ld. Cit(A)’] U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) In Appeal Arising Out Of The Order Dated 27.03.2024 U/S 143(1) Of The Act Of The Cpc, Bengaluru (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Ld. Ao’), For Assessment Year 2023-24. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed The Original Return Of Income Along With Form 10Da On 29.11.2023. Subsequently, The Return Of Income Along With Form 10Da Was Revised On 30.12.2023. The Cpc Processed The Return Disallowing Deduction U/S 80Jjaa Of The Act, Vide Intimation Dated 27.03.2024. Against This Intimation Dated 27.03.2024, The Appellant Assessee Filed Appeal Before The Ld.Cit(A) Which Was Partly Allowed, Vide Order Dated 23.09.2024. 3. Being Aggrieved, The Appellant-Assessee Has Preferred The Present Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, Ms Ananya KapoorFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, CIT, DR
Section 143(1)Section 250Section 80J

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)

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)