← 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

Reliance Industries Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 3(4), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are treated as partly allowed

ITA 2317/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

Section 14ASection 250(6)Section 32Section 35

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J” Bench, Mumbai Before Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (JM) I.T.A. No

Gopal Sponge & Power Pvt. Ltd, Raipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed, in terms of our observations here in above

ITA 226/RPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am (Ita No. 226/Rpr/2022) (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Gopal Sponge & Power Pvt. Ltd., Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Village- Siltara, Near Industrial Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur, (C.G.) Growth Centre, Phase- 2, Raipur, (C.G.) Pan: Aaccg1525F (अपीलाथ" /Applicant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri B. Subramanyam, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.K. Meena, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 02-08-2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17-10- 2023

For Appellant: Shri B. Subramanyam, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Meena, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 801A(4)(iv)

reporting. The non-furnishing of balance sheet in form 10 CCB is a procedural mistake. 2. The Ld. PCIT has concluded that the deduction under section 80IA. cannot be allowed to be set off against non- eligible business. which is incorrect. The appellant is 15 engaged in manufacturing of sponge

DCIT, Circle, Panipat vs. Paliwal Overseas Pvt. Ltd., Panipat

In the result, Revenue’s appeal being ITA No

ITA 644/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 36

computation of income under the normal provisions relating to depreciation @ 10% instead of 5% claimed by the assessee, thus resulting in undue excessive deduction under section 80IA, and carry forward of excessive WDV in respect of building only with a view to claim in the future years higher depreciation allowance

ACIT, Circle, Panipat vs. Paliwal Overseas Pvt. Ltd., Panipat

In the result, Revenue’s appeal being ITA No

ITA 2083/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 36

computation of income under the normal provisions relating to depreciation @ 10% instead of 5% claimed by the assessee, thus resulting in undue excessive deduction under section 80IA, and carry forward of excessive WDV in respect of building only with a view to claim in the future years higher depreciation allowance

ACIT, Circle, Panipat vs. Paliwal Overseas Pvt. Ltd., Panipat

In the result, Revenue’s appeal being ITA No

ITA 2082/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Sept 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 36

computation of income under the normal provisions relating to depreciation @ 10% instead of 5% claimed by the assessee, thus resulting in undue excessive deduction under section 80IA, and carry forward of excessive WDV in respect of building only with a view to claim in the future years higher depreciation allowance

ACIT, Circle, Panipat vs. Paliwal Overseas P.Ltd, Panipat

In the result, Revenue’s appeal being ITA No

ITA 1263/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 36

computation of income under the normal provisions relating to depreciation @ 10% instead of 5% claimed by the assessee, thus resulting in undue excessive deduction under section 80IA, and carry forward of excessive WDV in respect of building only with a view to claim in the future years higher depreciation allowance

Paliwal Overseas Pvt. Ltd., Panipat vs. DCIT, Circle, Panipat

In the result, Revenue’s appeal being ITA No

ITA 5878/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Sept 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 36

computation of income under the normal provisions relating to depreciation @ 10% instead of 5% claimed by the assessee, thus resulting in undue excessive deduction under section 80IA, and carry forward of excessive WDV in respect of building only with a view to claim in the future years higher depreciation allowance

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bilaspur vs. M/S Jagannathdas Harichandmal Jewellers Pvt. Ltd, Raigarh

In the result appeal of revenue is partly allowed in terms of our observations herein above

ITA 106/RPR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur22 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.106/Rpr/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2012-13 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs M/S. Jagannathdas Harichandmal Income Tax (Central), Bilaspur Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. Sadar Bazar, Raigarh (C.G.) Pan: Aaccj2840G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Choudhary N.C. Roy, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 14/07/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22/09/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am : The Captioned Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Bhopal, Dated 16.03.2022 Which In Turn Arises From The Order By Ld. Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Dated 30.12.2018 For A.Y.2012-13. The Grounds Of The Appeal Raised By The Revenue Are As Under: “ 1. Whether On The Fact & In The Circumstances Of The Case In Law, While Holding Assessment Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 143(3) Of Act As Invalid & Void-Ab-Initio, The Ld. Cit(A) Completely Ignored The Fact That During The Course Of Survey, The Assessee Failed To Discharge Its Burden In Establishing 'The Identity, Creditworthiness & Genuineness Of The Transactions As Required U/S 68 Of The Income Tac Act. Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Ignoring That Reassessment Proceeding Are Based On Fresh Facts/Information Rather Than Change Of Opinion. 2. Whether On The Fact & In The Circumstances Of The Case In Law, The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Ignoring That Confirmation Of Concealment Of Income/Disclosure Made In Statement Recorded During Survey U/S 133A Of Act Is An Information, Though Not Conclusive, Which May Be Used In Regular Assessment Or Reassessment Proceedings.

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Choudhary N.C. Roy, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, रायपुर "यायपीठ, रायपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR "ी र"वश सूद, "याियक सद

Alpha Hi-Tech Fuel Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Snr Circle, Surendranagar

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 68/RJT/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot05 Sept 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.68/Rjt/2009 (धििाधरणणवध/ Assessment Year 2005-06) Alpha Hi-Tech Fuel Limited, बिाम/ D.C.I.T, Station Road, Surendranagar Vs. Lakhtar, Dist. Surendranagar, Gujarat-382775 स्ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaca4258P (अपीला््/Appellant) (प्य््/ Respondent) अपीला््थरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, A.R Shri B.D Gupta, Sr. D.R. प्य््करथरसे/Respondent By: सुिणाईकरतारीख/ Date Of Hearing 08/06/2023 घोवणाकरतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 05/09/2023 आदेश/ O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, A.R
Section 40Section 80Section 80I

activity of maintenance of infrastructure facility being solid waste management. As per the assessee, the profit from the impugned activity was eligible for deduction under section 80IA(4) of the Act effective from assessment year 2004-05 being maintenance of infrastructure facilities. The assessee company was established dated 20 January ... raised by the assessee, we find it pertinent to find out whether the assessment year in dispute in which the assessee has claimed deduction under section 80IA of the Act in the year under consideration is the 2nd assessment year. 11.1 It is the settled position of law that

Procter & Gamgle Hygiene& Healthcare, Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 7(1), Mumbai

Appeals are partly allowed

ITA 6591/MUM/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2023AY 2004-05
For Appellant: Shri Yogesh TharFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Batham
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

Assessee for Assessment Year 1999-2000 (ITA No. 6795/Mum/2009) reads as under: ―10. Ground No. V(1) pertains to reducing the deduction under section 80IA by allocating Head Office expenses like employment cost, depreciation, capital expenditure, etc. 11. This issue is also considered by the Tribunal in assessee ... Thus, the Assessing Officer reduced the Other Income from the profits and gains derived from the industrial undertaking for the purpose of computing deduction under Section 80IA of the Act. 9.3. Being aggrieved, the Assessee carried the issue in appeal before CIT(A). However, the CIT(A) declined to grant

Addl CIT RG 7(1), Mumbai vs. Proctor & Gamble Hygiene & Healthcare Ltd, Mumbai

Appeals are partly allowed

ITA 6549/MUM/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2023AY 2004-05
For Appellant: Shri Yogesh TharFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Batham
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

Assessee for Assessment Year 1999-2000 (ITA No. 6795/Mum/2009) reads as under: ―10. Ground No. V(1) pertains to reducing the deduction under section 80IA by allocating Head Office expenses like employment cost, depreciation, capital expenditure, etc. 11. This issue is also considered by the Tribunal in assessee ... Thus, the Assessing Officer reduced the Other Income from the profits and gains derived from the industrial undertaking for the purpose of computing deduction under Section 80IA of the Act. 9.3. Being aggrieved, the Assessee carried the issue in appeal before CIT(A). However, the CIT(A) declined to grant

ACIT, Circle- 5(2), New Delhi vs. Celebi Delhi Cargo Terminal Management India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 8301/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. N.K.Billaiya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaacit, Vs. M/S. Celebi Delhi Cargo Terminal Circle-5(2), Management India Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi New Delhi Room No. Ce-05, Import Building-2, International Cargo Terminal, Igi Airport, New Delhi Pan : Aadcc6885B (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 80Section 80I

appellant has 7 M/s. Celebi Delhi Cargo Terminal Management India P. Ltd. advanced the following 3 arguments in support of its claim of deduction under section 80IA(4) of the Act: (1) According to the proviso to section 80IA(4)(i), the agreement of DIAL with the AAI is sufficient ... factual and legal position discussed above, I am of the considered view that the appellant has satisfied all the conditions to claim deduction under section 80IA of the Act. Accordingly, the claim made by the appellant for deduction of Rs. 83,15,39,055/- u/s 80IA(4) is allowed

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

In the result, the appeals are allowed

ITA 768/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 80I

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 ... clarified that a structure for loading, unloading, storage etc. at a port would qualify for deduction under Section 80IA. The condition of a certificate from the Port Authority was fulfilled and JNPT certified that the facility provided by the assessee was an integral part of the port. The assessee developed

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

In the result, the appeals are allowed

ITA 767/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 80I

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 ... clarified that a structure for loading, unloading, storage etc. at a port would qualify for deduction under Section 80IA. The condition of a certificate from the Port Authority was fulfilled and JNPT certified that the facility provided by the assessee was an integral part of the port. The assessee developed

Sudhir Vrundavandas Valia, Mumbai vs. ACIT-Cir-20(1), Mumbai

ITA 1096/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2023AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 80ISection 90

erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. 3. Ld. PCIT erred in directing the Assessing Officer to disallow the claim of deduction under section 80IA(4)(iv) of the Act. 4. Ld. PCIT has erred in arriving at the conclusion on the basis of various reasons, which were ... prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The PCIT also issued directions to the Assessing Officer to not allow the claim of deduction under Section 80IA(4) of the Act and to allow credit of foreign tax only if the Appellant satisfied the requirements as per Rule

DCIT 2(1), Mumbai vs. Chennai Continer Terminal P.Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 894/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon’Ble

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80Section 92C

ultimately tax neutral and hence does not have any effect on the profit of the Appellant. Duty credit entitlement is eligible for deduction under section 80IA of the Act 10. Without prejudice to the grounds 1 to 9. erred in not appreciating that since the duty credit entitlement is having ... 1119/MUM/2013 Chennai Container Terminal Pvt. Ltd maintaining the container terminal dock, it should be eligible for deduction under section 80IA of the Act; Other Income 11. erred in not allowing deduction under section 80IA of the Act on other income of Rs 3,27,000 earned by the Appellant: Capital

DCIT 2(1), Mumbai vs. Chennai Continer Terminal P.Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 893/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon’Ble

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80Section 92C

ultimately tax neutral and hence does not have any effect on the profit of the Appellant. Duty credit entitlement is eligible for deduction under section 80IA of the Act 10. Without prejudice to the grounds 1 to 9. erred in not appreciating that since the duty credit entitlement is having ... 1119/MUM/2013 Chennai Container Terminal Pvt. Ltd maintaining the container terminal dock, it should be eligible for deduction under section 80IA of the Act; Other Income 11. erred in not allowing deduction under section 80IA of the Act on other income of Rs 3,27,000 earned by the Appellant: Capital

Chennai Container Terminal P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 2(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1119/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon’Ble

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80Section 92C

ultimately tax neutral and hence does not have any effect on the profit of the Appellant. Duty credit entitlement is eligible for deduction under section 80IA of the Act 10. Without prejudice to the grounds 1 to 9. erred in not appreciating that since the duty credit entitlement is having ... 1119/MUM/2013 Chennai Container Terminal Pvt. Ltd maintaining the container terminal dock, it should be eligible for deduction under section 80IA of the Act; Other Income 11. erred in not allowing deduction under section 80IA of the Act on other income of Rs 3,27,000 earned by the Appellant: Capital

Chennai Container Terminal P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1118/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon’Ble

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80Section 92C

ultimately tax neutral and hence does not have any effect on the profit of the Appellant. Duty credit entitlement is eligible for deduction under section 80IA of the Act 10. Without prejudice to the grounds 1 to 9. erred in not appreciating that since the duty credit entitlement is having ... 1119/MUM/2013 Chennai Container Terminal Pvt. Ltd maintaining the container terminal dock, it should be eligible for deduction under section 80IA of the Act; Other Income 11. erred in not allowing deduction under section 80IA of the Act on other income of Rs 3,27,000 earned by the Appellant: Capital

Nahar Colours and Coatinhgs Private Limited, Udaipur vs. Principal Commissioner Ofincometax, Udaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 140/JODH/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur09 Aug 2023AY 2018-19
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 801ASection 80I

Total amount of Duty Drawback claimed in the A.Y. 2018-19 is Rs.48901.00. Enclosed herewith Invoice and Shipping Bill. 2. Deduction under Section 80IA (4) (iv) was claimed for 3 branches located at Sadiya. Sodamada & Coimbatore in the A.Y. 2018-19. i) Please refer enclosed Balance Sheets of the specified ... businesses for which deduction under section 80IA (4)(iv). 32 Nahar Colours and Coatings Private Ltd ii) Enclosed list of all the business premises and godowns and the nature of activity carried out. In addition to this 10CCB of all the 3 branches is also enclosed as a documentary evidence