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.
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 icai announcement income tax penalty itat ITAT Delhi mca circular MCA notification penalty 271(1)(c) penalty u/s 271(1)(c) Press Release reasons recorded reopening 148 Reopening us 147 Search & Seizure sebi circular unexplained cash credits validity of notice u/s 148 Withdrawal of 2000 500 Bank Notes
Assessing Officer had taken a reasonable stand that 25 kg written in WhatsApp chat/text message was 25 lakh - ITAT…
Shareholders are only owners of the shares of the company therefore, income from properties earned by the company cannot be…
When approval for reassessment was granted by unauthorised authority, such jurisdictional error cannot be shielded by the law of limitation…
ITAT on presumption of bogus purchases ought to have remanded case to AO to reconsider the whole matter instead of…
Where proceedings u/s 153C are barred by limitation, AO can not reopen the case invoking section 148 and 148A of…
Corporate guarantees executed by the corporate debtor constitute “financial debt” under IBC and banks to be recognized as financial creditors…