← 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

M/S. Coretech Ventures (Bangalore) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru-2, Bangalore

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

ITA 746/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Coretech Ventures (Bangalore) Pvt. Ltd., The Principal Divyasree Chambers’ Commissioner Of Wing-A, O Shaugnessy Income Tax, Road, Bengaluru – 2, Langford Town, Vs. Bengaluru. Bangalore – 560 025. Pan: Aafcc2775E Appellant Respondent : Shri V. Chandrashekar, Assessee By Advocate : Shri V.S. Chakrapani, Cit- Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 01-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 30/03/2021 Passed By Ld.Pcit, Bangalore -2 U/S. 263 Of The Act For A.Y. 2016-17 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of Revision Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bengaluru -2, Bengaluru, Under Section 263 Of The Act Dated 30/03/2021, In So Far As It Is Against The Appellant Is Opposed To Law, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case.

For Respondent: Shri V. Chandrashekar
Section 143Section 263Section 80Section 801A

interest income from fixed deposits of Rs. 1,08,79,022/- and other income of Rs.1,57,10,756/. The Ld.PCIT observed that, deduction under section 80IA(4)(iii) was claimed and allowed on interest receipts and other income etc., interalia, included in the profit and gains of the eligible ... Revenue. Accordingly, the assessment order is set aside with respect to exclude interest income from sister concerns and other income while computing eligible deduction under section 80IA of the Act. The Assessing Officer is directed to carryout thorough and detailed enquiry. The assessee must be provided with reasonable opportunity

Gateway Terminals India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT- Panvel -Circle Panvel, Panvel

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3132/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Gateway Terminals India Pvt. Ltd The Dcit, Gti House, Jawaharlal Nehru Port, Panvel, Circle Panvel Vs. Seva Uran, Mumbai-400 707 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaccg1899E Assessee By : Shri Manish Kanth, Ar Revenue By : Shri Hoshang B. Irani, Dr Date Of Hearing: 02.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.07.2022

For Appellant: Shri Manish Kanth, ARFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang B. Irani, DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 801ASection 80I

learned CIT(A) has erred in holding that the appellant has furnished inaccurate particulars of income by claiming deduction under section 80IA on interest income The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that, the deduction under Section 801A of the Act was claimed based on various judicial precedents ... where there exists difference of opinion. 1.3. The learned CIT (A) has erred in holding that appellant has concealed income by claiming excess deduction under section 80IA. The CIT (A) failed to appreciate that the interest income of Rs 8,67,66,538 was clearly reflected in the audited financial

M/S. Mother Earth Environ Tech Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-4(1)(4), Bengaluru

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

ITA 276/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Sri Mahesh Kumar L., A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Besaganni, D.R
Section 139Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 80I

assessee under section 80IA of the Act by the reasons being that the assessee has not filed Form No.10CCB for claiming deduction under section 80IA of the Act along with the return of income for the AY 2017-18 which is a pre-requisite for claiming such deduction

Yes Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2 (2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer in ITA number 3238/M/2018 for assessment year 2013 –

ITA 3500/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shekhar L. Gajbhiye, CIT
Section 14ASection 35DSection 40

same decision . The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in 408 ITR 500 has categorically held that additional ground relating to claim of deduction under Section 80IA cannot be permitted to raise, if necessary evidence that assessee was entitled to claim was not on record and assessee had no reason ... that a. it was known to the Revenue that Jetty is in operation since A.Y. 1998-99 and further, b. the benefit of deduction under Section 80IA of the Act was granted in the subsequent assessment year. 052. The Revenue agitated that additional ground could be urged by the assessee

Yes Bank Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer in ITA number 3238/M/2018 for assessment year 2013 –

ITA 3499/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shekhar L. Gajbhiye, CIT
Section 14ASection 35DSection 40

same decision . The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in 408 ITR 500 has categorically held that additional ground relating to claim of deduction under Section 80IA cannot be permitted to raise, if necessary evidence that assessee was entitled to claim was not on record and assessee had no reason ... that a. it was known to the Revenue that Jetty is in operation since A.Y. 1998-99 and further, b. the benefit of deduction under Section 80IA of the Act was granted in the subsequent assessment year. 052. The Revenue agitated that additional ground could be urged by the assessee

Yes Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT - 2(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer in ITA number 3238/M/2018 for assessment year 2013 –

ITA 3498/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shekhar L. Gajbhiye, CIT
Section 14ASection 35DSection 40

same decision . The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in 408 ITR 500 has categorically held that additional ground relating to claim of deduction under Section 80IA cannot be permitted to raise, if necessary evidence that assessee was entitled to claim was not on record and assessee had no reason ... that a. it was known to the Revenue that Jetty is in operation since A.Y. 1998-99 and further, b. the benefit of deduction under Section 80IA of the Act was granted in the subsequent assessment year. 052. The Revenue agitated that additional ground could be urged by the assessee

DCIT- 2(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Yes Bank Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer in ITA number 3238/M/2018 for assessment year 2013 –

ITA 3238/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shekhar L. Gajbhiye, CIT
Section 14ASection 35DSection 40

same decision . The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in 408 ITR 500 has categorically held that additional ground relating to claim of deduction under Section 80IA cannot be permitted to raise, if necessary evidence that assessee was entitled to claim was not on record and assessee had no reason ... that a. it was known to the Revenue that Jetty is in operation since A.Y. 1998-99 and further, b. the benefit of deduction under Section 80IA of the Act was granted in the subsequent assessment year. 052. The Revenue agitated that additional ground could be urged by the assessee

DCIT- 2(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Yes Bank Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer in ITA number 3238/M/2018 for assessment year 2013 –

ITA 3237/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shekhar L. Gajbhiye, CIT
Section 14ASection 35DSection 40

same decision . The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in 408 ITR 500 has categorically held that additional ground relating to claim of deduction under Section 80IA cannot be permitted to raise, if necessary evidence that assessee was entitled to claim was not on record and assessee had no reason ... that a. it was known to the Revenue that Jetty is in operation since A.Y. 1998-99 and further, b. the benefit of deduction under Section 80IA of the Act was granted in the subsequent assessment year. 052. The Revenue agitated that additional ground could be urged by the assessee

DCIT 2(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Yes Bank Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer in ITA number 3238/M/2018 for assessment year 2013 –

ITA 3236/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shekhar L. Gajbhiye, CIT
Section 14ASection 35DSection 40

same decision . The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in 408 ITR 500 has categorically held that additional ground relating to claim of deduction under Section 80IA cannot be permitted to raise, if necessary evidence that assessee was entitled to claim was not on record and assessee had no reason ... that a. it was known to the Revenue that Jetty is in operation since A.Y. 1998-99 and further, b. the benefit of deduction under Section 80IA of the Act was granted in the subsequent assessment year. 052. The Revenue agitated that additional ground could be urged by the assessee

Jt. CIT (OSD), CC-7(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Andhra Expressway Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1588/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1588/Mum/2021 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1589/Mum/2021 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Jcit (Osd), Cc-7(2), M/S Andhra Expressway Ltd. R. No. 655, Aayakar बनाम/ Ground Floor, Gammon Bhavan, M. K. Road, House, Veer Savarkar Vs. Mumbai-400020 Marg, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400 025 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aadca3577E (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलधथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Smt. Shailja Rai, Ld. Dr प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By Shri Rakesh Joshi, Ld. Ar : सुनवधईकीतधरीख/ : 01.06.2022 Date Of Hearing घोर्णधकीतधरीख / : 24.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeals Have Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Impugned Order Of Even Date 29.06.2021, Passed By 2

For Appellant: Smt. Shailja Rai, Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 32Section 32(1)(ii)Section 80I

assessee. For the assessment year 2005-06, the assessee filed its return of income on 31st October 2005, declaring nil income after claiming deduction under section 80IA of the Act in respect of the BOT road project. Similarly, for the assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08 also, the assessee ... filed its return of income in regular course claiming deduction under section 80IA of the Act in respect of BOT project. Assessments for these assessment years were originally completed under section 143(3) of the Act rejecting assessee's claim of deduction under section 80IA

Savita Oil Technologies Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 47, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 867/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.867/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2008-09) M/S. Savita Oil बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-47 Technologies Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Vs. 66/67, Nariman Bhavan, Road, Mumbai-400020. Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacs7934A (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Hiro Rai Revenue By: Shri Sanjeev Kashyap सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 26/05/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24/06/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(A)-38, Mumbai Dated 21.11.2013 For The Assessment Year 2008-09. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Brought To Our Notice 2. That The Following Grounds Raised By The Assessee Is Neither Being Pressed Nor Does They Survive For The Reasons Given Therein As Under: - “(I) Ground.4- Disallowance U/S 14A In View Of Order Giving Effect To Cit(A) Order & Order U/S 154, Not Pressed Qua Balance Disallowance Of Rs.7,74,722/- (Ii) Ground No. 5 Disallowance As Capital Expenditure Since Depreciation (Ground No.6) Allowed, Not Pressed. (Iii) Ground No. 6 – Allowance Of Depreciation In Order U/S 154, Ao Has Allowed Depreciation. Hence, Does Not Survive.

For Appellant: Shri Hiro RaiFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Kashyap
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 158BSection 80Section 801ASection 80I

only question of debate before the Tribunal was whether the profit earned during the Assessment Year 2009-10 would be entitled for deduction under Section 80IA(5) of the Act without deducting the losses, which were absorbed in the earlier years. 8. The said issue is now no longer

Play Games 24 X 7 Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy.CIT-13, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 3830/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2022AY 2014-15
Section 263Section 40Section 9

bifurcation of interest income submitted by the assessee and examined it on merits and decided whether or not a particular income qualifies for deduction under Section 80IA. In the said exercise, the tribunal has relied upon submissions made by the assessee and accepted, the bifurcation and nature and character

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1)(2), Bangalore vs. M/S. Bangalore International Airport Limited, Bangalore

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, whereas the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 374/BANG/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 80Section 80I

time of hearing of appeal.” 3. The main issues arising out of these cross appeals are as follows:- (1) Eligibility to claim deduction under Section 80IA of the Act by the Assessee in respect of the following income (Assessee’s appeal Ground No.2 and Revenue’s appeal ground Nos. 2.III ... income being linked to the business of development, design, construction, commissioning, maintenance, operation and management of the Bangalore International Airport, is eligible for deduction under Section 80IA of the Act. 10. The ld DR submitted that the interest received by the assessee is not directly relatable to the business

M/S. Bangalore International Airport Limited, Bangalore vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 1, Bangalore

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, whereas the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 191/BANG/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 80Section 80I

time of hearing of appeal.” 3. The main issues arising out of these cross appeals are as follows:- (1) Eligibility to claim deduction under Section 80IA of the Act by the Assessee in respect of the following income (Assessee’s appeal Ground No.2 and Revenue’s appeal ground Nos. 2.III ... income being linked to the business of development, design, construction, commissioning, maintenance, operation and management of the Bangalore International Airport, is eligible for deduction under Section 80IA of the Act. 10. The ld DR submitted that the interest received by the assessee is not directly relatable to the business

Pria Cetp (India) Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT - CC- 2(1), Mumbai

ITA 3613/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Om Prakash Kantassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri C.T. Mathews, Sr. A.R
Section 143(3)Section 80Section 80I

light of the facts and circumstances of the case and case law relied upon. 6. Undisputedly, the assessee’s claim for deduction under section 80IA of the Act qua the water treatment system plant commenced in June 2004. It is also not in dispute that assessee’s claim qua deduction ... been entertained and as such the only inference can be drawn that present claim of the assessee for deduction under section 80IA of the Act has become the first year. 7. In the backdrop of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case we have perused the impugned order passed

Indianoil Skytanking Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 3(1)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 407/BANG/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)Section 80Section 80I

contrary to the facts and circumstances of the present case and is not in accordance with law. 2. Denial of claim of deduction under section 80IA of the Act 3. The CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the denial of claim of deduction under section 80IA ... Assessee did not fall within the meaning of ‘airport’ and as such was not an “infrastructure facility” for the purposes of claiming deduction under section 80IA of the Act. 5. The CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in holding that the Assessee had not entered into an agreement

M/S. Indianoil Skytaking Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 299/BANG/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)Section 80Section 80I

contrary to the facts and circumstances of the present case and is not in accordance with law. 2. Denial of claim of deduction under section 80IA of the Act 3. The CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the denial of claim of deduction under section 80IA ... Assessee did not fall within the meaning of ‘airport’ and as such was not an “infrastructure facility” for the purposes of claiming deduction under section 80IA of the Act. 5. The CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in holding that the Assessee had not entered into an agreement

DCIT 10(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Jyothy Laboratories Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue as well as the Cross

ITA 7280/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhacit-10(2)(1) Vs. M/S Jyothy Laboratories R. No. 216-A, Aayakar Ltd., Ujala House, Ram Bhavan, M.K. Road, Krishna Mandir Road, Mumbai – 400 020 Kondivita, Andheri (East) Mumbai - 400059 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aabcl3167F Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: J.D. Mistry, Priyanka Jain &For Respondent: Achal Sharma
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(29)(BA)Section 80I

1 ITA No.7280/Mum/2016 & C.O. No. 114/Mum/2018 A.Y. 2012-13 ACIT, 10(2)(1) Vs. M/s Jyothy Laboratories Ltd. IN THE

ACIT 1(1) (1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Amazia Developers Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, impugned order is upheld and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2414/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman आअसं.2414/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2014-15) The Acit – 1(1)(1), 579, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. M/S.Amazia Developers Pvt. Ltd. 276, 1St Floor, Lwarence & Mayo House, Mumbai 400 001. Pan : Aahca-6934-H ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Mehul Jain ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : None सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 11/05/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 13/05/2022 आदेश/ Order

For Appellant: Shri Mehul JainFor Respondent: None
Section 143(3)Section 80I

also a fact that the said IT Park initially belonged to another entity and was notified as an infrastructure facility eligible for deduction under section 80IA(4)(iii) of the Act. Though, on purchase of the said IT park, the assessee did not get the benefit of deduction under section

M/S Indianoil Skytanking Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 583/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)Section 80Section 80I

contrary to the facts and circumstances of the present case and is not in accordance with law. 2. Denial of claim of deduction under section 80IA of the Act 3. The CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the denial of claim of deduction under section 80IA ... Assessee did not fall within the meaning of ‘airport’ and as such was not an “infrastructure facility” for the purposes of claiming deduction under section 80IA of the Act. 5. The CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in holding that the Assessee had not entered into an agreement