Deduction u/s 80JJAA. There is no requirement of at least 100 new workmen to be employed

Deduction u/s 80JJAA There is no requirement of atleast 100 new workmen to be employed to claim deduction

ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
ABCAUS 3090 (2019) (07) ITAT

Important Case Laws Cited/relied upon by the parties:
Panacea Biotec Ltd. Vs. ACIT 122 ITD 199

The instant appeal by the Assessee was against the order of CIT(Appeals) in confirming the disallowance of deduction claimed for employment of additional work force u/s 80JJAA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act).

The Assessee was a company engaged in the business of manufacture. The Assessee claimed deduction u/s. 80JJAA of the Act and the same was allowed in Assessment completed u/s 143(3) of the Act.

Subsequently, the Assessing Officer (AO) initiated reassessment proceedings on the ground that to claim deduction u/s 80JJAA of the Act, the assessee ought to had employed atleast 100 new workmen during the relevant previous year and since the Assessee employed less workmen, the deduction u/s 80JJAA of the Act was wrongly allowed, which had resulted in escapement of income chargeable to tax.

Accordingly, the AO added the deduction allowed u/s 80JJAA of the Act.

On appeal by the Assessee, the CIT(A) confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer (AO).

The Tribunal observed that identical issue had come for consideration in Assessee’s own case in succeeding assessment year where also the AO had disallowed the claim by holding that the aasessee company had not employed more than 100 new employees . However, the Tribunal had opined that no such condition was imposed in the said provision.

Accordingly, the Tribunal following the said decision, set aside the order of CIT(A) on this issue and remanded the question of deduction u/s 80JJAA of the Act, to the AO for consideration on satisfaction of the other conditions for grant of deduction.

Download Full Judgment Click Here >>

• Information in loose papers not corroborated with assessee, can’t be said to belong to assessee
• Setting aside remand order of CIT(A) without interfering with direction to delete addition, did not revive AO’s order
• Whether Arbitral Tribunal can grant a prohibited claim in a contract – Larger Bench to decide
• Court can examine contractual employee termination on sole ground of ineligibility
• Upon deceased acquiring family, as specified earlier GPF nomination became invalid – SC

addition u/s 68 addition u/s 69A ca misconduct cash deposit in bank cbdt circular CBDT Instruction cbdt notification cbdt order cbdt press release cgst circular cgst notification cit revision 263 concealment penalty condonation of delay covid-19 custom circular demonetisation due date extension e-way bill faq GST circular GST Council Meeting gst faq gstn advisory GSTR-3B GST rates IBBI ibc itat ITAT Delhi mca circular MCA notification order u/s 119 penalty 271(1)(c) penalty u/s 271(1)(c) Press Release reasons recorded reopening 148 Reopening us 147 Search & Seizure sebi circular transfer and postings unexplained cash credits validity of notice u/s 148 Withdrawal of 2000 500 Bank Notes