← All Phrases

“deduction under section 80IA”

DeductionsSection 80IASection 80IA554 judgments

The decision most relied on for deduction under section 80IA is Liberty India v. CIT (317 ITR 218), cited in 571 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on deduction under section 80IA

Liberty India v. CIT
317 ITR 218 · 2009 · Supreme Court
571
citing judgments

The Supreme Court clarified that for profits and gains to be eligible for deductions under sections like 10B, 80IA, or 80IB, the income must be "derived from" or have a direct nexus to the eligible business activity. Income from incidental sources like the sale of scrips/licenses or interest on employee loans is generally not considered as derived from the eligible business for such deductions.

Pandian Chemicals Ltd. v. CIT
262 ITR 278 · 2003 · Supreme Court
353
citing judgments

Income eligible for deduction under Section 80IA or 80IC must have a direct nexus with the eligible business activity of the industrial undertaking. Income merely incidental to the business, even if part of the assessee's overall business, is not considered "derived from" the eligible undertaking.

M.M.Aqua Technologies Limited v. CIT
436 ITR 582 · 2021 · Supreme Court
308
citing judgments

Amendments to tax law that impose new obligations or change existing legal positions apply prospectively, even if stated to be "for the removal of doubts." The judgment also clarifies that deductions under Section 43B are allowed only on actual payment, overriding the mercantile system of accounting.

Bajaj Tempo Ltd. v. CIT
196 ITR 188 · 1992 · Supreme Court
289
citing judgments

Provisions in taxing statutes that grant incentives, concessions, or exemptions for promoting economic growth and industrialization must be interpreted liberally and purposively. Any restrictions placed on such provisions should also be construed reasonably to advance their objective, not frustrate it.

CIT v. ABG Heavy Industries Ltd.
322 ITR 323 · 2010 · High Court
229
citing judgments

The Assessing Officer cannot deny a Section 80IA deduction by merely asserting that the assessee is not a "developer" without considering the relevant agreements and facts. Entitlement to Section 80IA deduction requires a thorough examination of the assessee's role as a developer.

CIT v. Paul Brothers
216 ITR 548 · 1995 · High Court
164
citing judgments

Once a claim for deduction under section 80-IA or 80-IB is allowed in the initial assessment year and is not subsequently withdrawn, the revenue is estopped from denying the deduction for subsequent years on the same grounds.

CIT v. Contimeters Electricals (P.) Ltd.
317 ITR 249 · 2009 · High Court
140
citing judgments

The requirement to file an audit report along with the return of income under section 80-IA(7) and similar provisions is directory, not mandatory. Such a report suffices if filed at any time before the assessment is framed.

CIT v. Karnal Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd.
243 ITR 2 · 2000 · Supreme Court
125
citing judgments

Income earned from deposits or investments directly and inextricably linked to the acquisition of assets or the setting up of a business project during its construction period is incidental to the asset acquisition, reducing the project cost, or constitutes business receipts eligible for relevant deductions, rather than 'income from other sources'.

Judgments citing deduction under section 80IA

Sabir, Sew 7 Prasad Jv, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 214/HYD/2019[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Feb 2025AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha G, Hon’Bleआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.212 To 214/Hyd/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09)

For Appellant: Shri A. Srinivas, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Sr.DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 80I

carrying on business of developing or operating or making or developing or maintaining any infrastructure facility, then the assessee is entitled to deduction under section 80IA of the Act. Admittedly, the creation of the activity undertaken by the assessee would fall under section 80IA ... nature of creation of irrigation facility would fall within the realm of infrastructure facility and therefore, the assessee is entitled to claim deduction under Section 80IA(4) of the Act. 18. Now the question before us is whether the assessee has fulfilled all the conditions as required and referred

Sabir, Sew & Prasad Jv, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(1), Hyderabad

ITA 213/HYD/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Feb 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha G, Hon’Bleआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.212 To 214/Hyd/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09)

For Appellant: Shri A. Srinivas, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Sr.DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 80I

carrying on business of developing or operating or making or developing or maintaining any infrastructure facility, then the assessee is entitled to deduction under section 80IA of the Act. Admittedly, the creation of the activity undertaken by the assessee would fall under section 80IA ... nature of creation of irrigation facility would fall within the realm of infrastructure facility and therefore, the assessee is entitled to claim deduction under Section 80IA(4) of the Act. 18. Now the question before us is whether the assessee has fulfilled all the conditions as required and referred

Sabir, Sew & Prasad Jv, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(1), Hyderabad

ITA 212/HYD/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Feb 2025AY 2006-07
For Appellant: Shri A. Srinivas, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Sr.DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 801ASection 801A(4)Section 80I

carrying on business of developing or operating or making or developing or maintaining any infrastructure facility, then the assessee is entitled to deduction under section 80IA of the Act. Admittedly, the creation of the activity undertaken by the assessee would fall under section 80IA ... nature of creation of irrigation facility would fall within the realm of infrastructure facility and therefore, the assessee is entitled to claim deduction under Section 80IA(4) of the Act. 18. Now the question before us is whether the assessee has fulfilled all the conditions as required and referred

Amit Kumar, Panipat Haryana vs. DCIT, NFAC (Delhi)

ITA 193/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

Section 143(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : F : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMITABH

Manoj Madanlal Chhajed, Pune vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Pune

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2017/PUN/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P Bora, H G Sharma
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI VINAY

Shri Manoj Madanlal Chhajed, Pune vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Pune

ITA 1178/PUN/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI VINAY

Bajaj Holdings & Investments Ltd ( Formerly Known As Bajaj Auto Ltd), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 3(1), Mumbai

The appeals are partly allowed

ITA 6838/MUM/2008[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2025AY 2004-2005

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti PatelFor Respondent: Shri Ankush Kapoor
Section 143(3)

being the sixth year of operation Phase I of Wind farm. In the return of income the Assessee computed and claimed deduction under Section 80IA of the Act at ‘Nil’ after deducting depreciation (including brought forward depreciation of earlier years). However, during the assessment proceedings, the Assessee claimed that only ... behalf of the Assessee, we set aside the order passed by the CIT(A) and directed the Assessing Officer to recomputed the deduction under Section 80IA of the Act as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of M/s Velayudhaswamy Spinning Mills

ACIT., Circle-8(1), Hyderabad vs. Ncc Hes Jv, Madhapur

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 688/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramarao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. M. Narmada, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80I

Khurana Engineering Ltd. v. ACIT, and Montecarlo Ltd. v. Principal CIT, we are tasked with determining whether the assessee qualifies for the deduction under Section 80IA(4) of the Act. The primary point of contention is whether the assessee acted as a "developer" within the meaning of the section, thus ... principles established in Katira Construction Ltd. 14.1. In Katira Construction Ltd., the Co-ordinate Bench delineated specific criteria to determine the eligibility for deduction under Section 80IA(4) of the Act, which are particularly relevant in distinguishing a developer from a contractor. We evaluate the assessee's operations

ACIT., Circle-8(1), Hyderabad vs. Ncc Hes Jv, Hyderabad

ITA 682/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Feb 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri S. Ramarao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. M. Narmada, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80I

Khurana Engineering Ltd. v. ACIT, and Montecarlo Ltd. v. Principal CIT, we are tasked with determining whether the assessee qualifies for the deduction under Section 80IA(4) of the Act. The primary point of contention is whether the assessee acted as a "developer" within the meaning of the section, thus ... established in Katira Construction Ltd. 14. 1. In Katira Construction Ltd., the Co-ordinate Bench delineated specific criteria to determine the eligibility for deduction under Section 80IA(4) of the Act, which are particularly relevant in distinguishing a developer from a contractor. We evaluate the assessee's operations

M/S. Merino Industries Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 12(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 292/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A No.174/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Circle-12(1), Kolkata…………………….................................……Revenue Vs. M/S Merino Industries Ltd.…………....................................……...…..…..Assessee 5, Alexandra Court, 60/1, Chowringhee Road, Kolkata – 700020. [Pan: Aaacc9186C] I.T.A No.292/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Merino Industries Ltd …………………….…….......................…… Assessee 5, Alexandra Court, 60/1, Chowringhee Road, Kolkata – 700020. [Pan: Aaacc9186C] Vs. Dcit, Circle-12(1), Kolkata.…….................................……....…........….. Revenue Appearances By: Shri Shyam Sundar Jha, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Prakash Nath Barnwal, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 12, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 06, 2025 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Are Cross-Appeals, One By The Assessee & The Other By The Revenue Against The Common Order Dated 09.10.2018 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). Since The Facts & Issued Involved In Both The Appeals Are Identical & Both The Appeals Are Arising Out Of The Same

Section 2(22)Section 250Section 801A

claimed under section 80-1A of the Act: (A) We argued the case before your honour on the matter of claiming of deduction under section 80IA(4) (iv) of the income tax Act.1961. The Ld A.O ignored our claim of deduction because the assessee company did not claim ... Units of Power Rate Consider = Rs.7.58 per unit as paid by us to UP State Electricity Board Particulars of Claim of Deduction Under Section 80IA Amount (Rs.) Notional Revenue Generated (53444613 Units x Rs. 7.58) 40,51,10,167.00 Less: Cost of Energy 25,70,78,000.00 Profit on generation

DCIT, Circle - 12(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Merino Industries Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 174/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 2(22)Section 250Section 801A

claimed under section 80-1A of the Act: (A) We argued the case before your honour on the matter of claiming of deduction under section 80IA(4) (iv) of the income tax Act.1961. The Ld A.O ignored our claim of deduction because the assessee company did not claim ... Units of Power Rate Consider = Rs.7.58 per unit as paid by us to UP State Electricity Board Particulars of Claim of Deduction Under Section 80IA Notional Revenue Generated (53444613 Units x Rs.7.58) Less: Cost of Energy Amount (Rs.) 40,51,10,167.00 25,70,78,000.00 Profit on generation

Sanghi Industries Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle -3 (1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 104/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Choksi, ARFor Respondent: Ms. K. Haritha, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 80ISection 92CSection 92E

account of applicability of Section 80A(2) that deduction under Chapter VI cannot exceed gross total income, there is no claim of deduction under Section 80IA (4), with respect to profits of power undertaking. b) The assesse has not claimed deduction 80IA from initial ... filed an appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT, Hyderabad. Arguments of the assessee: · During the year, the assessee has not claimed any deduction under section 80IA. Hence, provisions of domestic transfer pricing are not applicable. Arguments of the Revenue: · The assessee is an eligible unit as per the provisions

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad vs. Koya and Company Construction Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals of Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 918/HYD/2019[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Jan 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rahul Singhania, Sr.D.R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 254Section 801ASection 801A(4)Section 80I

Koya and Company Construction Limited आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “B

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad vs. Koya and Company Construction Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals of Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 917/HYD/2019[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Jan 2025AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rahul Singhania, Sr.D.R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 254Section 80I

Assessment Years 2003-04, 2004-05, and 2005-06, respectively, by denying the deduction under section 80IA of the Act. 4. Aggrieved with such assessment orders, assessee filed appeals before the LD.CIT(A), who granted part relief to the assessee by passing common order dt.15.03.2019, wherein it was held

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad vs. Koya and Company Construction Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals of Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 916/HYD/2019[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Jan 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rahul Singhania, Sr.D.R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 254Section 801ASection 801A(4)Section 80I

Assessment Years 2003-04, 2004-05, and 2005-06, respectively, by denying the deduction under section 80IA of the Act. 4. Aggrieved with such assessment orders, assessee filed appeals before the LD.CIT(A), who granted part relief to the assessee by passing common order dt.15.03.2019, wherein it was held

DCIT-1(2)1, Mumbai. vs. Patil Construction and Infrastructure Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the revenue

ITA 4944/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Hon'Ble & Ms. Padmavathy S., Hon'Bleι.Τ.Α. No.4940/Mum/2024

For Appellant: Mandar VaidyaFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. D/R
Section 801A

assessee's own case. 29. It is also imperative to mention here that the CIT(A) for A.Y 2018-19 has allowed the deduction under section 80IA of the Act for which the Department had preferred appeal before the Tribunal which was dismissed on technical issue. 30. Even before ... prior years and the order of the CIT(A) for A.Y 2018-19 both allowing the claim of the assessee for claiming deduction under section 80IA of the Act and thus, in our view the intermediate assessment years, i.e., A.Y 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2017-18, cannot be disturbed

DCIT-1(2)1, Mumbai. vs. Patil Construction and Infrastructure Ltd, Mumbai

In the result In the result, all the three appeals filed by the revenue s filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4942/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Hon’Ble & Ms. Padmavathy S., Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Mandar VaidyaFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. D/R
Section 801A

| | | | आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण"ायपीठ,मुंबई| IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER

DCIT-1(2)1, Mumbai vs. Patil Construction and Infrastructure Ltd, Mumbai

In the result In the result, all the three appeals filed by the revenue s filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4940/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Hon’Ble & Ms. Padmavathy S., Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Mandar VaidyaFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. D/R
Section 801A

| | | | आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण"ायपीठ,मुंबई| IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER

Sadbhav Engineering Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle 1(3), Ahmedabad

ITA 235/AHD/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarsr. No. Appellant Respondent 1-7 It(Ss)A.No./ Asstt.Year 170 To 175 & 235/Ahd/2021 Asst. Year 2012- 13 To 2018-19 Sadbhav Engineering Ltd. Nr. Havmour Restaurant Navrangpura Ahmedbad. Dcit, Cent.Cir.1(3) Ahmedabad. 8-14 183 To 189/Ahd/2021 Asst. Year 2012- 14 To 2018-19 Pan : Aadcs 0852 Q Dcit, Cent.Cir.1(3) Ahmedabad. Sadbhav Engineering Ltd. Nr. Havmour Restaurant Navrangpura Ahmedabad. (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By Shri Dhinal Shah, Ar Revenue By: Shri H. Phani Raju, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 18/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 10/01/2025 आदेश/Order Per Bench: The Above Cross-Appeals Of The Assessee & The Revenue Are Against The Consolidated Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals) 11, Ahmedabad All Dated 04.08.2021 Passed Under Section 250(6) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act" For Short) For The

For Respondent: Shri H. Phani Raju, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250(6)Section 69ASection 80I

plus additional claim was also made. The AO held that the assessee was not entitled to additional/enhanced claim of deduction under section 80IA(4) of the Act, and accordingly, denied the said claim in all the years involved. 6. As for claim of deduction commensurate to that claimed ... account of the resultant profits due to disallowance of subcontract expenses the AO held that the assessee was not eligible to claim deduction under section 80IA(4) of the Act on the same. 7. Besides, the AO disallowed ESOP expenses debited to the profit & loss account, and also disallowed assesses

ACIT Circle 8(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Thirumalai Chemicals Limited, Mumbai

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3358/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 32Section 801ASection 80I

duly served on the assessee. During the year under consideration, the assessee has claimed a sum of Rs. 1,13,32,605/- as deduction under section 80IA(4)(iv) for the first time. The assessee in this regard submitted before the AO that an agreement has been entered into with ... power generated through Windmill. The assessee further submitted that the generation and sale of power through Windmill is a separate undertaking eligible for deduction under section 80IA and the deduction is claimed accordingly. The AO held that the assessee is in M/s. Thirumalai Chemicals Ltd. the business of manufacturing