“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

Income Tax Officer, Corporate Ward3(1), Chennai, Tamilnadu vs. Salcomp Manufacturing India (P) Ltd, Chennai, Tamilnadu

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1403/CHNY/2023[2009-10, 2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Oct 2024

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1403/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 V. The Ito, M/S. Salcomp Manufacturing- Corporate Ward-3(1), India Pvt. Ltd., Chennai. Nokia Telecom Sez, Sipcot Industrial Park- Phase-Iii, Sriperumbudur, Chennai-602 105. [Pan: Aajcs 7988 P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. Muralidhar, FCA &For Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी एबी टी. वक", "ाियक

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Hyderabad vs. Sew Infrastructure Limited, Hyderabad

ITA 1717/HYD/2017[2009-10]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad07 Oct 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang, Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri K.K. ChaitanyaFor Respondent: Smt. Mamata Choudhary

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153ASection 80I

appellant filed a return of income on 16-09-2015, admitting total income of Rs. 68,67,13,660/-, after claiming a deduction under Section 80IA (4) of the Act for an amount of Rs.44,91,03,357/-, for the first time, in respect of profits and gains derived from ... during the course of assessment proceedings, the AO called upon the assessee to show cause as to why the fresh claim of deduction under Section 80IA(4) of the Act, should not be disallowed in light of the decision of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case

T and T Infra Limited, Pune vs. Asst.Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-7, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 291/PUN/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2016-17 T & T Infra Limited Acit, Circle – 7, Pune A-1, Vishnu Vihar, Bibwewadi Vs. Kondhwa Road, Market Yard, Pune – 411037 Pan: Aaect3902H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tarun Ghia Department By : S/Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari & Sourabh Nayak Date Of Hearing : 10-07-2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 01-10-2024 O R D E R Per Astha Chandra, Jm :

For Appellant: Shri Tarun GhiaFor Respondent: S/Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari and Sourabh Nayak

Section 143(2)Section 80I

specific work executed by assessee in which assessee had claimed that it acted as developer and claimed to be eligible for deduction under section 80IA, matter was to be restored back to Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh adjudication.” 21. Referring to various decisions which were relied on by the Assessing Officer ... vest in JNPT free of cost. An assessee did not have to develop the entire port in order to qualify for a deduction under Section 80IA. Parliament did not legislate a condition impossible of compliance. A port is defined to be an infrastructure facility and the circular of the Board

Mahalaxmi Asphalt Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1291/AHD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Sept 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2020-21

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 234BSection 80I

Gujarat Paguthan Energy Corporation (P) Limited vs. DCIT (SCA No.13825 of 2009 dated 26.02.2014). The jurisdictional High Court while considering the eligibility of deduction under Section 80IA of the Act wherein the assessee is required to furnish the Audit Report before due date of filing the return of income ... such Audit Report was filed during the assessment proceedings, held that the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 80IA of the Assessment Year: 2020-21 Page 3 of 4 Act, The Ld. AR further relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case

Aarvee Denims & Exports Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT, Ahmedabad-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 396/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.396/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19 Aarvee Denims & Exports Ltd. The Pr.Cit बनाम/ 191, Shahwadi Ahmedabad-1 V/S. Narol–Sarkhej Highway Ahmedabad – 382 405 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aabca 6019 P (अपीलाथ&/ Appellant) ('( यथ&/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Divyakant Parikh, Ar Revenue By : Shri Prithviraj Meena, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 27/09/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Divyakant Parikh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prithviraj Meena, CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40Section 43BSection 80I

Facts of the Case: 2. The assessee filed its return of income for AY 2018-19 declaring NIL income after claiming deductions under section 80IA of the Act. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act making addition of Rs.42,06,604/-. The copy of intimation ... Rs.46,16,406/- for unpaid leave salary was considered, the tax effect would be NIL because the assessee was eligible for a large deduction under section 80IA. The gross total income before the section 80IA deduction was Rs.12,04,36,098/-, and the available deduction under section 80IA was Rs.17

DCIT CC- 1(3), Aaykar Bhavan vs. Montecarlo Limited, Sindhu Bhawan Road, Bodakdev

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue in ITA

ITA 599/AHD/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Sept 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 80I

infrastructure facility and not from the use of development facility. 3.6. It was further contended before the Tribunal that the purpose of the deduction under Section 80IA(4) of the Act was that the private players of the parties will bring the investment for the development of the infrastructure facility ... later on the facility will be exploited for generating the income which is only eligible for the purpose of deduction under Section 80IA(4) of the Act. It was therefore contended that for the such purpose, various concepts has Built, Own Operate and Transfer (BOOT) and Built, Own, Lease

DCIT CC- 1(3), Aaykar Bhawan vs. Montecarlo Limited, Montecarlo House, Sindhu Bhawa

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue in ITA

ITA 598/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 80I

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad vs. Megha Engineering and Infrastructures Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1499/HYD/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. Hon’Ble & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Hon’Bleassessment Year – 2020-21 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. M/S.Megha Engineering & Infrastructure Ltd. Income Tax, Hyderabad. Central Circle – 2(1), Hyderabad. Pan : Aaecm7627A

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, C.AFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

Section 1Section 14ASection 80I

case was selected for scrutiny assessment and during the course of assessment proceedings, the AO noticed that the assessee has claimed deduction under section 80IA(4), in respect of the profits derived from development of infrastructure projects and thus, called upon the assessee to file 4 necessary details, including details ... relevant information submitted by the assessee and also considering provisions of Section 80IA(4) of the Act, observed that in order to allow deduction under Section 80IA, the assessee has to comply with the conditions laid down under Section 80IA(4) of the Income

Vijay M. Mistry Construction P. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. NFAC (Delhi) AO Jurisdiction the DCIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 1105/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 271(1)(c)Section 44ASection 80I

therefore, a developer, which entails the assessee to claim benefits under section 80IA(4) of the Act. Thus, the issue of claim of deduction under section 80IA(4) of the Act is allowed in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. This common ground raised in all the appeals

Mount Mary Nagari Co Op Credit Society Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 23(2)(3), Mumbai

ITA 3475/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 270ASection 271FSection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

Page 1 ITA No.3475/Mum/2024 A.Y: 2017-18 Mount Mary Nagari Co-op Credit Society Limited Vs. ITO, 23(2)(3

Senbo Engineering Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-11, Kolkata.

ITA 1377/KOL/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Sept 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Years: 2007-08 Senbo Engineering Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of 87, Lenin Sarani, Vs Income Tax, Circle-11, Kolkata - 700013 Kolkata - 700013 (Pan: Aadcs6138B) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. Bhattacharya, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80Section 80I

Assessing Officer submitted a remand report putting forth the case of the Revenue on the issue relating to the assessee's claim for deduction under section 80IA. As already noted, the said remand report was confronted by the Id. CIT(Appeals) to the assessee and in response thereto ... even on the rejoinder filed by the assessee. He has simply held that the issue relating to the assessee's claim for deduction under section 80IA was already considered and decided in favour of the assessee by his Id. predecessor vide his order dated 30.10.2009 passed in the first round

Astt. Commisioner of Income Tax, Lucknow vs. M/S Apco Infratech Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow

In the result, appeal of the Revenue and Cross Objection of the assessee are dismissed, as indicated above

ITA 66/LKW/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow05 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G. D. Padamahshali & Shri Subhash Malguriaassessment Year: 2014-15 The Asstt. Commissioner V. M/S Apco Infratech Pvt. Ltd Of Income Tax B-9, Vibhuti Khand Central Circle Ii Gomti Nagar Lucnow Lucknow Pan:Aadca5639H (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.19/Lkw/2017 [In Ita No.66/Lkw/2017] Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Apco Infratech Pvt. Ltd V. The Asstt. Commissioner Of B-9, Vibhuti Khand Income Tax Gomti Nagar Central Circle Ii Lucknow Lucnow Pan:Aadca5639H (Cross Objector) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Kumar Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Neil Jain, CIT (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 194Section 80Section 80I

claim of deduction of Rs.4,68,60,927/- under section 80IA of the Act. 6. The facts relating to the claim of deduction under section 80IA of the Act are that the assessee filed its revised return of income on 19.3.2016 declaring total income of Rs.61 ... assessee claimed deduction of Rs.4,66,10,927/- under section 80IA of the Act. The Assessing Officer was of the view that deduction under section 80IA of the Act is allowable only if return is filed claiming such deduction before the due date specified in section

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Chandigarh vs. Unipro Techno Infrastructure Pvt Ltd, Chandigarh

In the result, the order of the ld CIT(A) is confirmed and the grounds of appeal taken by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 693/CHANDI/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate and Shri A.K. Sood, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 80I

company filed its return of income for impugned assessment year on 28/02/2017 declaring total income of Rs. 2,87,50,940/- after claiming deduction under section 80IA of Rs. 7,47,55,843/-. The matter was selected for scrutiny and notice under section 143(2) and 142(1) were issued ... were completed and order under section 143(3) dt. 13/12/2018 was passed by the AO whereby the AO has disallowed the claim of deduction under section 80IA amounting to Rs. 7,47,55,843/- and the assessed income was determined at Rs. 10,35,06,783/-. The AO further stated

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1, 1, Chandigarh vs. Unipro Techno Infrastructure Pvt Ltd, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 667/CHANDI/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: The Hon’Ble P&H High Court. 2. The Appeal Crave To Amend Or Add Any Other Grounds Of Appeal At The Time Of Hearing.

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate and Shri A.K. Sood, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR

Section 13Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 80I

issued fresh notice to the assessee and passed the consequent order under section 143(3) r.w.s 263 dt. 19/12/2017 wherein the claim of deduction under section 80IA amounting to Rs 4,56,56,527/- was disallowed beside an addition of Rs. 67,38,310/- as per the original assessment order

Kl Envitech Pvt Ltd, Thane vs. ITO Ward 1(3), Thane

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 2869/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjeeand Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav A Potdar, CAFor Respondent: Shri P.D.Chougule (Addl.CIT) SR DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 801A(4)Section 80I

solid waste management company and provides infrastructure to the different local & Government authorities. During the impugned assessment year, the assessee claimed deduction under section 80IA(4)(c) of the Act amounting to Rs.2,17,94,593/-. Considering the activities of the assessee, the Ld.AO rejected the deduction claimed ... order of the assessee’s own case (supra). The Hon’ble High Court of Bombay also liberated the issue related to the deduction under section 80IA for development, operational and maintenance which are the three activities but should notbe read to be in cumulative in nature. The nature of activity

Parry Engineering & Electronics Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT, Ahmedabad-3, Ahmedabad

In the result the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 464/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Gandhi, C.AFor Respondent: Shri H. Phani Raju, CIT DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(va)Section 80I

13th April 2021, determining the total income at ₹2,79,07,196/- after making the following additions/disallowances: - Disallowance of deduction under Section 80IA(4) of the Act amounting to ₹34,48,856/-. - Addition of unsecured loans amounting to ₹2,00,00,000/-. 4. Being aggrieved by the assessment order ... currently pending. 5. The Pr. CIT issued a notice under Section 263 of the Act, observing that the AO had erroneously allowed the deduction under Section 80IA(4) of the Act despite the assessee not submitting the necessary evidence in support of the claim during the assessment proceedings

M/S. Mundra International Container Terminal Pvt. Ltd., Kutch vs. The DCIT, Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad

ITA 1916/AHD/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 14A

contract with the Central Government or State Government or Local Authority. However, the Proviso intends to extend the benefit of the said deduction under Section 80IA of the Act even to a transferee or a contractor who is I.T.A Nos. 1613 & 1916/Ahd/2019 and Ors. A.Ys. 2015-16 & 2016-17 Page

The ACIT, Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Mundra International Container Terminal Pvt. Ltd., Kutch

ITA 1872/AHD/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 14A

The ACIT, Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Mundra International Container Terminal Pvt. Ltd., Kutch

ITA 1711/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 14A

Mundra International Container Terminal Pvt. Ltd., Kutch vs. The DCIT, Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad

ITA 1613/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 14A