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

Neptune Holidays Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 8(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 105/KOL/2023[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Feb 2024AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.105/Kol/2023 Assessment Year : 2019-20 Neptune Holidays Pvt. Ltd.……........................…...……………....Appellant 3Rd Floor, 113/F, Maheshwartola Road, Kolkata – 700046. [Pan: Aaccn9754F] Vs. Ito, Ward-8(2), Kolkata…...…..........................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Bonnine Debarma, Jcit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 22, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 07, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 13.12.2022 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1) For That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. Cit (Appeals) Was Grossly Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 11,76,344/- Made By A.O. At Cpc On Account Of Delay In Deposit Of Employees Contribution To P.F. & Esi While Processing The Return Of Income U/S 143(1) When In Fact Entire The Sum Was Paid Within The Due Dates Specified Under The Relevant Statues & Wrong Mention Of Dates In Tax Audit Report Were Duly Brought To The Notice Of Ld. Cit (Appeals).

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 80Section 80J

JCIT (OSD), I/C DCIT, Circle-8(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Tata Aia Life Insurance Co. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue stands dismissed and appeal/CO of assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1897/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1897/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Jt. Commissioner Of Income बिधम/ M/S. Tata Aia Life Tax (Osd)- I/C Dcit, Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. 14Th Floor, Tower-A, Circle-8(3)(1) Aaykar Bhavan, Room No. Peninsula Business Park, 615, M. K. Road, New Senapati, Bapat Marg, Marine Lines, Mumbai- Lower Parel, Mumbai- 400020. 400013. Cross Objection No. 80/Mum/2023 Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.1897/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/S. Tata Aia Life बिधम/ Jt. Commissioner Of Insurance Co. Ltd. Income Tax (Osd)- I/C Vs. 14Th Floor, Tower-A, Dcit, Circle-8(3)(1) Peninsula Business Park, Aaykar Bhavan, Room Senapati, Bapat Marg, No. 615, M. K. Road, Lower Parel, Mumbai- New Marine Lines, 400013. Mumbai-400020. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1759/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Jt. Commissioner Of Income बिधम/ M/S. Tata Aia Life Tax (Osd)- I/C Dcit, Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Circle-8(3)(1) 14Th Floor, Tower-A, Aaykar Bhavan, Room No. Peninsula Business Park, 615, M. K. Road, New Senapati, Bapat Marg, Marine Lines, Mumbai- Lower Parel, Mumbai- 400020. 400013. .

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das (DR)
Section 10Section 10(34)Section 14ASection 44