← 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

Transworld Terminals Dadri Private Limited (Formerly Albatross Inland Ports Pvt Ltd), Mumbai vs. Assessing Officer, National E-Assessment Centre, Mumbai

ITA 2581/MUM/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Dec 2022AY 2018-2019
For Appellant: Shri M. Subramanian, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Kashyap, D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 69CSection 80Section 80GSection 80I

company has filed return of income for the year under consideration declaring income from business and profession at Rs.8,81,42,837/- claiming deductions under section 80IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) to the tune of Rs.8,81,37,187/- and under section

Anugraha Fashion Mill Private Limited, Tirupur vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal in I

ITA 883/CHNY/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.883 & 865/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 M/S. Anugraha Fashion Mill Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, 15, Suriyan Nagar, Income Tax, Abt Rod New Extn., Karuvampalayam, Centralized Processing Centre, Tirupur 641 604. Bangalore 650 500. [Pan:Aahca3311Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Yeshwanth Kumar, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 12.12.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.12.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 3, Coimbatore Dated 31.08.2020 & 28.09.2020 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2017-18. I.T.A. No. 883/Chny/2020 2. The Appellate Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act”] Dated 31.08.2020 Has Not Been Digitally Signed & Thereby There Was A Mistake Apparent On Record. The Above

For Appellant: Shri Yeshwanth Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 80I

section 143(1) of the Act by the CPC, Bengaluru dated 16.03.2019 by making various disallowances. The CPC, Bengaluru disallowed the claim of deduction under section 80IA of the Act amounting to ₹.2,37,08,703/- for non-filing of Form 10CCB along with the return of income. On appeal ... record and gone through the orders of authorities below. In this case, the assessee filed the audit report in Form 10CCB for claiming deduction under section 80IA of the Act on 13.11.2017. The processing of return under section 143(1) of the Act was done by the CPC, Bengaluru

Anugraha Fashion Mill Private Limited, Tirupur vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal in I

ITA 865/CHNY/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.883 & 865/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 M/S. Anugraha Fashion Mill Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, 15, Suriyan Nagar, Income Tax, Abt Rod New Extn., Karuvampalayam, Centralized Processing Centre, Tirupur 641 604. Bangalore 650 500. [Pan:Aahca3311Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Yeshwanth Kumar, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 12.12.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.12.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 3, Coimbatore Dated 31.08.2020 & 28.09.2020 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2017-18. I.T.A. No. 883/Chny/2020 2. The Appellate Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act”] Dated 31.08.2020 Has Not Been Digitally Signed & Thereby There Was A Mistake Apparent On Record. The Above

For Appellant: Shri Yeshwanth Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 80I

section 143(1) of the Act by the CPC, Bengaluru dated 16.03.2019 by making various disallowances. The CPC, Bengaluru disallowed the claim of deduction under section 80IA of the Act amounting to ₹.2,37,08,703/- for non-filing of Form 10CCB along with the return of income. On appeal ... record and gone through the orders of authorities below. In this case, the assessee filed the audit report in Form 10CCB for claiming deduction under section 80IA of the Act on 13.11.2017. The processing of return under section 143(1) of the Act was done by the CPC, Bengaluru

Triway Container Freight Station P Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO Corporate Ward 3(2), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 255/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.254 & 255/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. Triway Container Freight Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Station P. Ltd., No. 14, Jaffer Street, Corporate Ward 3(2), Harbour, Chennai 600 001. Chennai – 34. [Pan:Aabct8013A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 29.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.12.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 11, Chennai Dated 06.12.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 14-15. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Has Filed Its Return Of Income On 28.09.2013 For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Admitting Nil Income After Claiming Deduction Under Section 80Ia(4) Of The Income

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, C.AFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 80I

that the assessee has filed its return of income on 28.09.2013 for the assessment year 2013-14 admitting nil income after claiming deduction under section 80IA(4) of the Income 2 I.T.A. Nos. 254 & 255/Chny/19 Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] of ₹.10,90,84,050/- The case

Triway Container Freight Station P Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO Corporate Ward 3(2), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 254/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.254 & 255/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. Triway Container Freight Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Station P. Ltd., No. 14, Jaffer Street, Corporate Ward 3(2), Harbour, Chennai 600 001. Chennai – 34. [Pan:Aabct8013A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 29.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.12.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 11, Chennai Dated 06.12.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 14-15. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Has Filed Its Return Of Income On 28.09.2013 For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Admitting Nil Income After Claiming Deduction Under Section 80Ia(4) Of The Income

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, C.AFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 80I

that the assessee has filed its return of income on 28.09.2013 for the assessment year 2013-14 admitting nil income after claiming deduction under section 80IA(4) of the Income 2 I.T.A. Nos. 254 & 255/Chny/19 Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] of ₹.10,90,84,050/- The case

The Peria Karamalai Tea & Produce Co.Ltd., Coimbatore vs. The DCIT, Corporate Circle-1, Coimbatore

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

ITA 189/CHNY/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 263(2)Section 80I

Income-tax Act, 1961 for both the assessment years is that as per information contained in form 10CCB the initial year from which deduction under section 80IA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is claimed is A.Y. 2003-04. Therefore, the ten years period for which deduction can be claimed ... under section 80IA expires by A.Y. 2012-13. Thus, deduction under section 80IA has been incorrectly claimed in the A.Ys. 2013-14 and 2014-15 resulting in underassessment of income for these years atleast to the extent of the amount of deduction claimed under section 80IA.” In response

ACIT CC-43, Mumbai vs. Roha Dyechem P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and revenue except ITA No

ITA 4295/MUM/2009[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2004-05 Acit Cen Ci-43 Rohadyechem Pvt Ltd., 6Th Floor, R.No. 659, Aayakar Survoday Mill Compund, Bhavan, M.K.Rd. Vs. M.P. Mills, Tardeo, Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai-400 034 Pan No. Aaacr 4974P Appellant Respondent

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80HSection 80ISection 92C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “K” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI OM PRAKASH

ACIT CC-43, Mumbai vs. Roha Dyechem P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and revenue except ITA No

ITA 4294/MUM/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2004-05 Acit Cen Ci-43 Rohadyechem Pvt Ltd., 6Th Floor, R.No. 659, Aayakar Survoday Mill Compund, Bhavan, M.K.Rd. Vs. M.P. Mills, Tardeo, Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai-400 034 Pan No. Aaacr 4974P Appellant Respondent

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80HSection 80ISection 92C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “K” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI OM PRAKASH

ACIT CC-43, Mumbai vs. Roha Dyechem P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and revenue except ITA No

ITA 4293/MUM/2009[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2004-05 Acit Cen Ci-43 Rohadyechem Pvt Ltd., 6Th Floor, R.No. 659, Aayakar Survoday Mill Compund, Bhavan, M.K.Rd. Vs. M.P. Mills, Tardeo, Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai-400 034 Pan No. Aaacr 4974P Appellant Respondent

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80HSection 80ISection 92C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “K” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI OM PRAKASH

Roha Dyechem P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 43, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and revenue except ITA No

ITA 2863/MUM/2009[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2004-05 Acit Cen Ci-43 Rohadyechem Pvt Ltd., 6Th Floor, R.No. 659, Aayakar Survoday Mill Compund, Bhavan, M.K.Rd. Vs. M.P. Mills, Tardeo, Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai-400 034 Pan No. Aaacr 4974P Appellant Respondent

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80HSection 80ISection 92C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “K” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI OM PRAKASH

Roha Dyechem Pvt.Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT-Central Circle 43, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and revenue except ITA No

ITA 2862/MUM/2009[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2004-05 Acit Cen Ci-43 Rohadyechem Pvt Ltd., 6Th Floor, R.No. 659, Aayakar Survoday Mill Compund, Bhavan, M.K.Rd. Vs. M.P. Mills, Tardeo, Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai-400 034 Pan No. Aaacr 4974P Appellant Respondent

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80HSection 80ISection 92C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “K” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI OM PRAKASH

Roha Dyechem Pvt.Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT-Central Circle 43, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and revenue except ITA No

ITA 2860/MUM/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2004-05 Acit Cen Ci-43 Rohadyechem Pvt Ltd., 6Th Floor, R.No. 659, Aayakar Survoday Mill Compund, Bhavan, M.K.Rd. Vs. M.P. Mills, Tardeo, Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai-400 034 Pan No. Aaacr 4974P Appellant Respondent

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80HSection 80ISection 92C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “K” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI OM PRAKASH

Roha Dyechem P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 43, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and revenue except ITA No

ITA 2859/MUM/2009[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2004-05 Acit Cen Ci-43 Rohadyechem Pvt Ltd., 6Th Floor, R.No. 659, Aayakar Survoday Mill Compund, Bhavan, M.K.Rd. Vs. M.P. Mills, Tardeo, Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai-400 034 Pan No. Aaacr 4974P Appellant Respondent

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80HSection 80ISection 92C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “K” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI OM PRAKASH

ACIT Cen Ci-43 vs. Roha Dyechem P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and revenue except ITA No

ITA 10/MUM/2009[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2004-05 Acit Cen Ci-43 Rohadyechem Pvt Ltd., 6Th Floor, R.No. 659, Aayakar Survoday Mill Compund, Bhavan, M.K.Rd. Vs. M.P. Mills, Tardeo, Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai-400 034 Pan No. Aaacr 4974P Appellant Respondent

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80HSection 80ISection 92C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “K” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI OM PRAKASH

DCIT 8(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Vodafone India Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid

ITA 5598/MUM/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 5598/मुं/2017 ("न.व. 2005-06) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax – 8(3)(2), Room No.615, 6Th Floor, Aaykarbhavan, M.K.Road, ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Mumbai – 400 020 बनाम Vs. M/S. Vodafone India Ltd. (Formerly Vodafone Essar Ltd.) Peninsula Corporate Park, Ganpat Rao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai 400 013. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent Pan: Aaach-5332-B आअसं. 5078/मुं/2017 ("न.व. 2005-06) M/S. Vodafone India Ltd. (Formerly Vodafone Essar Ltd.) Peninsula Corporate Park, Ganpat Rao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai 400 013. ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aaach-5332-B बनाम Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax – 8(3)(2), Room No.615, 6Th Floor, Aaykarbhavan, M.K.Road, ...... ""तवाद"/Respondent Mumbai – 400 020 Revenue By : S/Shrianand Mohan&Ajay K.R.Kesari Assessee By :S/Shri Salil Kapoor, Ketanved & Ms. Soumya Singh

For Appellant: S/Shri Salil Kapoor, KetanVed and Ms. Soumya SinghFor Respondent: S/ShriAnand Mohan&Ajay K.R.Kesari
Section 114Section 143(3)Section 263Section 801ASection 80I

appeal. The ground no.1 of appeal is accordingly dismissed as not pressed. 24. Ground No.2 of the appeal reads as under: “2.Disallowance of deduction under section 80IA of the Act on 'Other Income' 2.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned

Vodafone India Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 8(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid

ITA 5078/MUM/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 5598/मुं/2017 ("न.व. 2005-06) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax – 8(3)(2), Room No.615, 6Th Floor, Aaykarbhavan, M.K.Road, ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Mumbai – 400 020 बनाम Vs. M/S. Vodafone India Ltd. (Formerly Vodafone Essar Ltd.) Peninsula Corporate Park, Ganpat Rao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai 400 013. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent Pan: Aaach-5332-B आअसं. 5078/मुं/2017 ("न.व. 2005-06) M/S. Vodafone India Ltd. (Formerly Vodafone Essar Ltd.) Peninsula Corporate Park, Ganpat Rao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai 400 013. ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aaach-5332-B बनाम Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax – 8(3)(2), Room No.615, 6Th Floor, Aaykarbhavan, M.K.Road, ...... ""तवाद"/Respondent Mumbai – 400 020 Revenue By : S/Shrianand Mohan&Ajay K.R.Kesari Assessee By :S/Shri Salil Kapoor, Ketanved & Ms. Soumya Singh

For Appellant: S/Shri Salil Kapoor, KetanVed and Ms. Soumya SinghFor Respondent: S/ShriAnand Mohan&Ajay K.R.Kesari
Section 114Section 143(3)Section 263Section 801ASection 80I

appeal. The ground no.1 of appeal is accordingly dismissed as not pressed. 24. Ground No.2 of the appeal reads as under: “2.Disallowance of deduction under section 80IA of the Act on 'Other Income' 2.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned

DCIT Cen Cir 8(4), Mumbai vs. Savita Oil Technologies Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue appeal is dismissed and the assessee Cross Objection is allowed

ITA 2323/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pavankumargadale,Judicialmember & Shri Amarjit Singhdeputy Commissioner Vs. M/S. Savita Oil Of Income Tax-Cc-8(4) Technologies Ltd. 6Th Floor, Room No. 66-67, 658, Aayakarbhavan, Narimanbhawan, M.K. Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400 020 Mumbai- 400 021 Pan No.Aaacs7934A Appellant Respondent

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 24Section 271Section 271(1)Section 275Section 80I

generation of electricity power in Maharashtra, Karnataka and Tamilnadu. The A.O. on perusal of the financial statements and The assessee has claimed deduction under Section 80IA (2) (iv) of the Act for two business units in industrial undertaking in industrial backward states and windmill installed as per provisions 4 Savita ... Section 80IA of the Act and deduction claimed. Finally, the AO was not satisfied with the submissions and has denied the claim of deduction under Section 80IA of the Act of Rs.10,46,24,128/- and also made additions in respect of disallowance under Section

Jt. Comm of Income Tax (OSD), CC - 7(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Rajamundry Expressway Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1587/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Us :-

Section 143(3)Section 32(1)(ii)Section 37(1)Section 40A(2)Section 801ASection 80I

consideration" 11. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in the law, whether the Ld CIT(A) erred in allowing the deduction under section 80IA of the ACT to the assessee without the facts that the same was not claimed by the assessee company in the return ... started its commercial operation. In the return of income filed for the assessment year 2006–07, for the first time the assessee claimed deduction under section 80IA. in respect of the aforesaid project. The claim for such deduction continued in the subsequent assessment years and for the impugned assessment year

Asian Star Company Ltd, Mumbai vs. PCIT (Central), Mumbai-1, Mumbai

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

ITA 710/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2022AY 2017-18
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80I

manufacturing of jewellery. The assessee is also engaged in the business of generation of wind power, against which the assessee has claimed deduction under section 80IA of the Act. The assessment for the year under consideration was completed by the Assessing Officer under section ... aside the assessment order dated 28.12.2019 passed by the Assessing Officer with the direction to complete the assessment after verifying the claim of deduction under section 80IA of the Act and also to verify the source of cash deposits made during demonetization period by calling for necessary supporting evidences

Nhava Sheva Internaitonal Container Terminal P. Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT (OSD) 2(3), Mumbai

In the result ground relating to the deduction under section 80IA in respect of Rs

ITA 3908/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2022AY 2011-12
Section 80I

Nhava Sheva International Container Terminal Pvt. Ltd. 4. The Learned AR submitted that the assessee has recently found that it has not claimed deduction under section 80IA of the Act on the above said amount of Rs. 490,00,000/-. In support of this submission, the learned AR invited ... record. After hearing the assessee, the AO may take appropriate decision in accordance with law. 7. In the result ground relating to the deduction under section 80IA in respect of Rs.4.90 crores is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 11.08.2022. (ABY T VARKEY