← All Phrases

“deduction u/s 80IA”

DeductionsSection 80IASection 80IA745 judgments

KARMA ECOTECH PVT. LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT,CIRLE 13(1), NEW DLHI, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7431/DEL/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2026AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Hon’Ble & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Hon’Ble

Section 119(2)Section 119(2)(b)Section 143(1)Section 80I

ITA No. 7431_DEL_2025_Karma Ecotech Pvt Ltd. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, E: NEW DELHI

DCM SHRIRAM LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in above terms

ITA 5560/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Challa Nagemdra Prasad & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 80Section 80ISection 92C

wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has defined the principle for determination of market value of goods and services for the purpose of deduction u/s 80IA of the Act. He also highlighted that the coordinate bench of Tribunal also accepted the identical issue various other years

DCM SHRIRAM INDUSTRIS LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-7(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in above terms

ITA 2166/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Challa Nagemdra Prasad & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C(10)Section 14ASection 80Section 92C

mandatory and other is directory. However, in the instant case, it is seen that the assessee has not made afresh claim of deduction u/s 80IA of the Act before us, but the claim of the deduction u/s 80IA of the Act was made in the return of income which

LOGICS POWERAMR PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASST DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6641/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2021-22 Logics Poweramr Private Vs. Asstt. Director Of Income Limited Tax, 1St Floor, Prestige Alpha No. 7, Sarswati Bhawan 1/4 Lalita Park, Laxmi Nagar 48/1, 48/2, East Delhi Laxmi Nagar Beratenaagrahara Begur, Delhi-110092 Hosur Rd. Uttarahalli Hobli, Pan No.Aadcl3204D Bangalore-560100 (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 80I

extracted below:- 3. Both the ld.AR’s take us to the CIT(A)’s detailed discussion holding that the assessee is entitled for deduction u/s 80IA in issue reading as under:- 2.1. Both the learned representatives take us to the CIT(A)'s detailed discussion holding the assessee is entitled ... statistical purpose.” 3. Both the ld.AR’s take us to the CIT(A)’s detailed discussion holding that the assessee is entitled for deduction u/s 80IA in issue reading as under:- 2.1. Both the learned representatives take us to the CIT(A)'s detailed discussion holding the assessee is entitled

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CHENNAI vs. OLYMPIA TECH PARK (CHENNAI) PRIVATE LIMITED , CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for AY 2014-15 & 2015-16

ITA 3084/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy.S & Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.3081 & 3084/Chny/2025 िनधा#रण वष# /Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16

For Appellant: Mr. Ajith Kumar Choradia, C.A ()For Respondent: Mr. Bipin C.N, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80I

developed by the assessee was approved under the Industrial Park Scheme, 2002. It is also not in dispute that the assessee has claimed deduction u/s. 80IA(4) of the Act from assessment year 2011- 12 and the same has been denied by the Assessing Officer. On appeal ... allowed deduction u/s. 80IA(4) of the Act and the same has been approved by the Tribunal. Although the department filed an appeal before the Hon’ble High Court of Madras, but subsequently the department had withdrawn the appeal filed before the Hon’ble High Court by filing memo that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CHENNAI vs. OLYMPIA TECH PARK (CHENNAI) PRIVATE LIMITED , CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for AY 2014-15 & 2015-16

ITA 3081/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy.S & Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.3081 & 3084/Chny/2025 िनधा#रण वष# /Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16

For Appellant: Mr. Ajith Kumar Choradia, C.A ()For Respondent: Mr. Bipin C.N, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80I

developed by the assessee was approved under the Industrial Park Scheme, 2002. It is also not in dispute that the assessee has claimed deduction u/s. 80IA(4) of the Act from assessment year 2011- 12 and the same has been denied by the Assessing Officer. On appeal ... allowed deduction u/s. 80IA(4) of the Act and the same has been approved by the Tribunal. Although the department filed an appeal before the Hon’ble High Court of Madras, but subsequently the department had withdrawn the appeal filed before the Hon’ble High Court by filing memo that

PLASCOM INDUSTRIES LLP,KOLKATA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), GUWAHATI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 280/GTY/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati02 Mar 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: S.M. Surana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sanjay Jha, JCIT
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 250Section 801ESection 801E(3)Section 801E(4)Section 801E(5)Section 801E(6)Section 80I

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “GUWAHATI BENCH”, GUWAHATI (VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA) SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI LAXMI

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2 1 1 , VADODARA, VADODARA vs. NETAFIM IRRIGATION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, VADODARA

In the result appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 2006/AHD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 80ISection 92BSection 92C

view that the appellant is eligible to claim deduction under section 80IA of the Act, and therefore, AO is directed to allow the deduction u/s 80IA of the Act claimed by the appellant. Hence, Ground No. 2 raised by the appellant is allowed.” 4. Aggrieved against the appellate order ... dismissed. I.T.A Nos. 2005 & 2006/Ahd/2025 A.Ys. 2012-13 & 2013-14 14 DCIT vs. Netafim Irrigation India Pvt. Ltd. 6. The Assessee claimed deduction u/s. 80IA(4) of the Act in respect of its participation in the Andhra Pradesh Micro Irrigation Project (APMIP). Whereas the only basis for disallowance made

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2 1 1 , VADODARA, VADODARA vs. NETAFIM IRRIGATION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, VADODARA

In the result appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 2005/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 80ISection 92BSection 92C

view that the appellant is eligible to claim deduction under section 80IA of the Act, and therefore, AO is directed to allow the deduction u/s 80IA of the Act claimed by the appellant. Hence, Ground No. 2 raised by the appellant is allowed.” 4. Aggrieved against the appellate order ... dismissed. I.T.A Nos. 2005 & 2006/Ahd/2025 A.Ys. 2012-13 & 2013-14 14 DCIT vs. Netafim Irrigation India Pvt. Ltd. 6. The Assessee claimed deduction u/s. 80IA(4) of the Act in respect of its participation in the Andhra Pradesh Micro Irrigation Project (APMIP). Whereas the only basis for disallowance made

M/S. THDC INDIA LIMITED,RISHIKESH vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 31/DDN/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun18 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode] [Assessment Year : 2017-18] M/S. Thdc India Ltd. Vs Pcit Ganga Bhawan, Aaykar Bhawan, Pragatipuram, Bye Pass 13 A, Subhash Road, Road, Rishikesh, Uttarakhand Uttarakhand-249201 Pan-Aaact7905Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Jeetan Nagpal, Ca Shri Sanjay Arora, Ca & Ms. Pallavi, Ca Revenue By Ms. Poonam Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 08.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 18.02.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 27.03.2022 By Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Dehradun [“Ld. Pcit”] Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising From The Assessment Order Dated 30.12.2019 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Joint Venture Company Of Government Of India & Government Of Uttar Pradesh & Engaged In The Business Of Generation & Supply Of Hydro- Electric As Well As Wind Power & Also Engaged In Construction Of Hydro Power Plants. The Return Of Income Was Filed On 30.10.2017, Declaring Total Income Of Inr 6,84,04,420/- After Claiming Deduction U/S 80-Ia Of The Act Of Inr 948,40,76,282/-. The Book Profits Was Shown At Inr 7,84,96,09,382/- & Mat Of Inr 1,67,52,32,236/- Was Paid. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny & After Considering The Submissions Made, Total Income Was Assessed At Inr 4,63,78,80,698/- By Making Disallowance Out Of Deduction Claimed U/S 80-Ia Of The Act To The Extent Of Inr 211,15,54,378/- & Further Making Addition Of Inr 245,79,21,900/- On Account Of Late Payment Surcharge On Outstanding Debtors For The Period Of 10 Months Holding The Same As Taxable On Accrual Basis & No Deduction U/S 80Ia Was Allowed On Such Addition.

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

late payment surcharge on outstanding debtors for the period of 10 months holding the same as taxable on accrual basis and no deduction u/s 80IA was allowed on such addition. 3. Against the said order, the assessee filed first appeal before Ld. CIT(A) which is pending as on date ... adequate inquiries and erred in directing the AO to re-frame the assessment after making necessary and proper inquiries regarding allowability of deduction u/s 80IA on capacity charges. 17. Before us, Ld.AR for the assessee submits that the ld. PCIT after examination of the material available on records, has initiated

AGARWAL ENTERPRISES,PUNE vs. A.O, PUNE

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

ITA 1713/PUN/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Feb 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2023-24

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Madan Thirmanpalli, Addl.CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 37(1)Section 80I

earned income out of sale proceeds received from generation of electricity by supplying the same to Rajasthan and Telangana governments and claimed deduction u/s 80IA of the Act at Rs.1,13,93,754/-. He noted that the assessee, apart from showing income from business of electricity generation related activities ... salary towards business of share trading and the balance 50% towards business of power generation and accordingly re-worked the deduction u/s 80IA of the Act. 5. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, on the basis of various submissions made by the assessee, noted that the evidences for claiming

M/S. BODAL CHEMICALS LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 104/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri S.S. Nagar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT (DR)
Section 250Section 35(1)(ii)Section 80Section 801ASection 80A(5)Section 80I

facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified and grossly erred in not allowing the deduction u/s 80IA(4)(ia) of the Action respect of operating and maintaining infrastructure facilities viz. effluent treatment plant amounting to Rs. 14,64.32.441/-by applying the provisions ... case, the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified and grossly erred in not allowing the deduction u/s 80IA(4)(ia) of the Act in respect of operating and maintaining infrastructure facilities viz. effluent treatment plant amounting

P & R ENGINEERING SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED.,NEW DELHI vs. CIRCLE 19(1), DELHI, DCIT, NEW DELHI, INDIA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4537/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2018-19] P & R Engineering Service Vs. Dcit Pvt. Ltd., 89, Lok Nayak Circle-19(1) Apartment, Rohini Courts, New Delhi S.O. Rohini Courts, North West Delhi, New Delhi- 110085. Pan-Aaccp0484E Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri V.K. Agarwal, Ar & Shri Hrithik Lamba, Adv. Respondent By Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 03.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 11.02.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 03.07.2025 Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Nfac/2017-18/10031831 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 11.02.2021 Passed U/S 143(3) R. W. Sections 143(3A) & 143(3B) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Has Claimed Deduction U/S 80-Ia Of The Act Of Inr 5,62,48,491/- Which Was Disallowed By The Ao For The Sole Reason That The Return Of Income Was Filed Belatedly On 30.03.2019 Though The Same Has To Be Filed Upto 31.10.2018 In Terms Of The Due Date As Per Section 139(1) Of The Act. Ld. Cit(A) Confirmed The Said Disallowance & Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee.

Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80Section 801ASection 80ASection 80I

merits. Accordingly, Ld. Sr. DR prayed that the matter be sent to the file of AO for necessary verification of the claim of deduction u/s 80IA of the Act made by the assessee. 6. Heard the contentions of both parties and perused the material available on record. On perusal ... technical default of delay in filing the return of income, it cannot be said that he has not examined the allowability of deduction u/s 80IA on the merits of the claim made by the assessee. 8. In view of the fact that CBDT has condoned the delay in filing

BUILT UP,PUNE vs. ADIT, BANGLORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2531/PUN/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Feb 2026AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2019-20 Built Up Adit, Cpc, Bangalore 1, Samda Apartment, Vs. Dr Ketkar Margs, Ghodke Chowk, Pune – 411004 Pan: Aaefb6432D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri V L JainFor Respondent: Shri Chandra Vijay, CIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 80I

assessee has filed the audit report in Form No.10CCB prior to the processing of the return, therefore, the assessee cannot be denied deduction u/s 80IA(4) of the Act. He accordingly submitted that since the assessee in the instant case has filed the audit report in Form No.10CCB

ERADICATUS INFECTUS PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 3934/DEL/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: CA Vkas Singh & CA V.K. JainFor Respondent: Sh. Manish Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 288(2)Section 44ASection 80Section 801Section 801ASection 801A(7)Section 80I

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES ‘I’: NEW DELHI. BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER And SHRI

JAYESH PURUSHOTTAM PATEL,PUNE vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEAL , PUNE

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

ITA 2315/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2315/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Jayesh Purushottam Patel, Vs. Ito, National Faceless 39D, J. N. Marg, Gultekadi, Assessment Centre, Pune- 411037. Delhi. Pan : Abapp3184D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Tarak TrivediFor Respondent: Smt Neha Thakur (Virtual)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 80I

deduction under Chapter VI-A of the IT Act. Assessment order dated 23.04.2018 was passed u/s 143(3) of the IT Act wherein deduction u/s 80IA of the IT Act was allowed to the assessee. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the IT Act since ... income returned by the assessee at Rs.1,19,18,200/-. The above assessed income includes addition of Rs.50,79,918/- towards disallowance of deduction u/s 80IA of the IT Act. 4 4. Being aggrieved with the above assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. Since

DCIT, CIRCLE 7(1), KOLKATA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, KOLKATA vs. SARAT CHATTERJEE & CO. VSP PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 749/KOL/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Jan 2026AY 2022-2023

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2022-23 Dcit, Circle-7(1), Kolkata ………….……………………….……….……….……Appellant Vs. Sarat Chatterjee & Co. Vsp Pvt. Ltd…….…………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Vasundhara, 9Th Floor, Sarat Bose Road, L R Sarani, Kol-20.. [Pan: Aadcs6139A] Appearances By: Shri Pradip Kumar Biswas, Addl. Cit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Rishav Jain, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 12, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 28, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.10.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [‘Cit(A)’] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2014–15. 2. The Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue With A Delay Of 159 Days & The Revenue Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of The Delay. After Going Over The Said Petition, We Find Sufficient Reasons Behind The Delay & Consequently, The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Hereby Condoned & We Proceed To Dispose Of The Appeal On Merits.

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 80Section 80I

been allowed by deleting the addition of Rs.23,23,75,920/- and the ld. CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to allow deduction u/s 80IA as claimed by the assessee. 5. Being dissatisfied, the revenue is in appeal before us challenging the impugned order by raising the following grounds ... submits that the assessee is a private limited company and the assessee filed return of income after claiming deduction u/s 80IA(4) 2 Sarat Chatterjee & Co. VSP Pvt. Ltd of the Act and in order substantiate the said deduction, the assessee had duly submitted audited balance sheet, copy of Form

ACIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. PENNA CEMENT INDUSTRIES LIMITED, HYDERABAD

ITA 1084/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Jan 2026AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Sourabh Soparkar, Advocate Represented by Department : Dr. Narendra Kumar NFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-DR Date of Conclusion of Hearing : 11/11/2025
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 14ASection 68Section 80Section 801ASection 80GSection 92C

spend towards CSR. Respectfully following the jurisdictional tribunal, ground no 3 is allowed. 5. Ground No.4 was raised against the disallowance of deduction u/s 80IA amounting to Rs.24,35,05,411/-. The company is engaged in the business of manufacturing of cement and generation of power. Power generated is being ... used for manufacturing cement and the profits earned from Power Divisions are claimed as deduction U/s 80IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The company has power generation units established in earlier financial years and claimed deduction U/s 801A on the profits earned from the power generation units. Details

ACIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. PENNA CEMENT INDUSTRIES LIMITED, HYDERABAD

ITA 1083/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Jan 2026AY 2017-18
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 14ASection 68Section 80Section 801ASection 80GSection 92C

cement and generation of power. Power\ngenerated is being used for manufacturing cement and the profits\nearned from Power Divisions are claimed as deduction U/s 80IA of the\nIncome Tax Act, 1961. The company has power generation units\nestablished in earlier financial years and claimed deduction U/s 801A ... assessee has\nbalance of income after setting of all its income from eligible income\nu/s. 801A.\n5.1 The power units started claiming deduction U/s 80IA from the year\nof profit generation and the same is permissible u/s 80IA. The major\nconcern raised by the AO in the remand report

DCIT, CC-2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S SPML INFRA LIMITED, SOUTH EAST DELHI

Appeal is dismissed at present

ITA 2119/KOL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY (Judicial Member)

Section 250Section 80Section 80I

Tribunal in assessee’s own case in ITA No. 440/Kol/2025, AY 2016-17, vide order dated 11.09.2025, wherein identical issue of deduction u/s 80IA of the Act has been decided by the Bench by holding that since the Hon’ble High Court is seized with the matter in the case

Showing 1–20 of 745 · Page 1 of 38

...