← All Phrases

“deduction u/s 80IA”

DeductionsSection 80IASection 80IA745 judgments

The decision most relied on for deduction u/s 80IA is CIT v. ABG Heavy Industries Ltd. (322 ITR 323), cited in 229 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on deduction u/s 80IA

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. ITC Ltd.
236 Taxmann 612 · 2016 · High Court
108
citing judgments

When computing deduction under Section 80IA, specifically for inter-unit transfer of power, the benefit cannot be claimed based on rates chargeable by distribution licensees to consumers. The deduction must be computed based on the rate fixed by the Tariff Regulation Commission for sale by electricity generating companies.

CIT v. Jawahar Bhattacharjee
341 ITR 434 · 2012 · High Court
99
citing judgments

An assessment order is erroneous for the purpose of Section 263 if the Assessing Officer fails to apply mind to relevant material, proceeds on an incorrect assumption of facts, or makes an incorrect application of law.

M/s Tamilnadu Petro Products Ltd. v. ACIT
338 ITR 643 · 2011 · High Court
56
citing judgments

For the purpose of Section 80IA relief, the sale of power is not a criterion for granting relief. Captive consumption of power must be valued at market price, and classification of units as saleable or non-saleable is irrelevant for determining the Arm's Length Price (ALP).

Mohan Breweries & Distilleries Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT
116 ITD 241 · 2009 · ITAT
27
citing judgments

The initial assessment year for claiming deduction under Section 80-IA is the first year the assessee actually claims the deduction, not necessarily the first year the enterprise is set up. The deduction under Section 80-IA applies only from the assessment year in which the claim is first made.

CIT v. Anil H. Lad
45 Taxmann.com 98 · 2014 · High Court
20
citing judgments

For the purpose of computing deduction under Section 80-IA, profits of other businesses do not need to be notionally brought forward and have no effect on the deduction claimed. Losses of earlier years already set off cannot be notionally set off again against current income eligible for deduction.

PCIT v. Surya Merchands Ltd.
387 ITR 105 · 2016 · High Court
19
citing judgments

The requirement to furnish an audit report along with the return of income under Section 80IA(7) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is directory and not mandatory, and will be satisfied if the report is filed during the assessment proceedings.

Patil & Sons Belgaum Constructions (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT. 7. Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai Bench-C
76 Taxmann.com 105 · 2016 · Reported
17
citing judgments

This case is cited for the proposition that deductions under sections 80IA and 80IAB of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are not available for infrastructure facilities unless they are specifically enumerated in the relevant sub-sections.

Judgments citing deduction u/s 80IA

Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Hyderabad vs. Regency Ceramics Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue being devoid and bereft

ITA 1340/HYD/2024[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad02 Jun 2025AY 2002-2003
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 33BSection 80HSection 80I

appeal are allowed. 5. 5. For the other assessment years 1999-2000, 2000-01, 2001- 02 & 2002-03, the issue of disallowance of deduction u/s 80IA of the Act are identical and hence the AO is directed to give effect to other assessment years

Income Tax Officer, Ward-3 (1), Hyderabad vs. Regency Ceramics Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue being devoid and bereft of any substance is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 1339/HYD/2024[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad02 Jun 2025AY 2001-2002

Bench: Us:

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 33BSection 80HSection 80I

erroneous both on facts and in law. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in directing to allow the deduction U/s. 80IA r.w.s 33B though there was no reconstructed or revived of business units as per the provisions of section ... order of the CIT(A), and restored the matter to his file for fresh adjudication of the claim of the assessee company for deduction U/s. 80IA r.w.s 33B of the Act. 9. The CIT(A) during the course of the set-aside proceedings, after deliberating at length on the facts

Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Hyderabad vs. Regency Ceramics Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue being devoid and bereft

ITA 1338/HYD/2024[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad02 Jun 2025AY 2000-2001
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 33BSection 80HSection 80I

appeal are allowed. 5. 5. For the other assessment years 1999-2000, 2000-01, 2001- 02 & 2002-03, the issue of disallowance of deduction u/s 80IA of the Act are identical and hence the AO is directed to give effect to other assessment years

Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Hyderabad vs. Regency Ceramics Limited, Hyderabab

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue being devoid and bereft

ITA 1337/HYD/2024[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad02 Jun 2025AY 1999-2000
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 33BSection 80HSection 80I

appeal are allowed. 5. 5. For the other assessment years 1999-2000, 2000-01, 2001- 02 & 2002-03, the issue of disallowance of deduction u/s 80IA of the Act are identical and hence the AO is directed to give effect to other assessment years

Seabird Marine Services Private Limited, Jamnagar vs. ACIT, Circle - 1, Jamnagar, Jamangar

ITA 83/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 83/Rjt/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: (2017-18) Seabird Marine Services Pvt. Vs. Ltd. Office No. 309 & 310, Centroid Luxuria, Nr. Crystal Mall, Khodiyar Colony, Aerodrome Road, Jamnagar 361006 Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle-1, Jamnagar, Aayakar Bhawan, Nr. Subhash Bridge, Jamnagar -Rajkot Highway, Jamnagar स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaccs 9869 C (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Appellant By : Shri S. N. Soparkar, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 30/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/05/2025 Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: आदेश / Order Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2017-18, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Dehi/ Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) [In Short 'Ld. Cit(A)'], Dated 02.01.2025, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer, Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”), Vide Order Dated 31.12.2019. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: “All The Below Mentioned Grounds Of Appeal Are Independent & Without Prejudices To Each Other.

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 114Section 115JSection 143(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DINESH MOHAN

L T Foods Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, Special Range-5, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1444/DEL/2019[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2025AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Abhishek Deval, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80Section 80GSection 80HSection 80I

filed its return of income for the relevant assessment year on 21-12-1999 declaring total income of Rs.6,20,054/- after claiming deduction u/s 80IA of the Act amounting to Rs. 2,64,67,883/- deduction u/s 80G of the Act amounting to Rs. 2,50,000/-. The assessing ... Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and matter was restored to the A. O., to decide as a fresh in regards the deduction u/s 80IA of the Act. The assessee has not concealed any particular of income at the time of filing the return of income. 11. Secondly, in the instant case

Shankarlal Kundanmal Parik, Kolhapur vs. DCIT, Circle 1, Kolhapur

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

ITA 400/PUN/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 May 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Respondent: Shri Milind Debaje
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 80Section 801ASection 80I

revised return was also furnished on 13.12.2022. The subsequent return was processed by CPC u/s 143(1) vide intimation order dated 07.08.2023, wherein deduction u/s 80IA of Rs.1,07,52,570/- was denied and refund claimed by the assessee was converted into demand of Rs.44,52,480/-. 3 4. After ... Addl./JCIT(A), Faridabad is 4 unjustified. Ld. AR submitted before the bench that the assessee has installed wind mills for which deduction u/s 80IA of Rs.1,07,52,570/- was claimed. It was also submitted that the assessee is entitled to claim this deduction for a period

Grasim Industries Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Cent. Cir. 1(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 2224/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri N.K. Billaiya, Am M/S Grasim Industries Ltd. Dcit, (Corporate Finance Division) Central Circle 1(4), A-2, Aditya Birla Centre, Vs. Room No. 902, S.K. Ahire Marg, Worli, Old Cgo Building, Mumbai - 400030 Mumbai-400020 (Appellant) : (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacg 4464B Dcit, M/S Grasim Industries Ltd. Central Circle 1(4), (Corporate Finance Division) Room No. 902, A-2, Aditya Birla Centre, Old Cgo Building, Vs. S.K. Ahire Marg, Worli, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai - 400030 Appellant By : Shri J.D. Mistri, Sr. Advocate, Shri Madhur Agarwal & Respondent By : Shri Dr. Kishor Dhule, Cit(Dr) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistri, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT(DR)
Section 37(1)Section 40Section 80I

Assessing Officer has allowed assessee’s claim. 31. Considering the above, we direct the Assessing Officer to allow assessee’s claim of deduction u/s. 80IA of the Act in respect of rental income. This ground is allowed. 32. The dispute in Ground No.8 is with regard to taxability of interest ... allow assessee’s claim. This ground is allowed. A.Y. 2009-10 Grasim Industries Ltd. 13. In Ground No.5, assessee has challenged disallowance of deduction u/s. 80IA of the Act on other income, being rent received from housing accommodation allotted to employees. 14. Having considered rival submissions, we find, identical issue

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Kolkata vs. Dhunseri Ventures Limited, Kolkata

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

ITA 968/KOL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey&Shri Sanjay Awasthi]

Section 115JSection 80ISection 92C

appropriate method. 6. Contrary to that the Ld. A.R supports the impugned order thereby submitting that for relevant year the assessee has claimed deduction u/s 80IA in respect of power plant set up in West Bengal. The electricity generated by the power plant was transferred to the PET regimes manufacturing ... power of both CPPs aggregating to Rs. 53.29 crores after deducting expenses incurred by these two thermal plants and thereafter claimed as deduction u/s 80IA of the Act. He has submitted Form 10CB for PU1 and PU 3 at Haldia for AY 2016-17. The Ld. Counsel further drew

International Switchgears Private Ltd., Chandigarh vs. Pr. CIT-1, Chandigarh

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 395/CHANDI/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.395/Chandi/2022 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S International Switchgears Pvt. Ltd. Pcit Plot No. 925-A, Industrialareaphase-Ii Chandigarh बनाम/ Vs. Chandigarh-160017 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaci-6305-F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Aditya Jain (Ca) - Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Rohit Sharma (Cit) – Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04-03-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14-05-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. By Way Of This Appeal, The Assessee Assails Invocation Of Revisionary Jurisdiction U/S 263 By Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chandigarh-1 (Pr.Cit) For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18 Vide Impugned Order Dated 30-03-2022 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Ao U/S.143(3) Of The Act On 17-12-2019. Having Heard Rival Submissions & Upon Perusal Of Case Records, The Appeal Is Disposed-Off As Under. The Assessee Being Resident Corporate

For Appellant: Shri Aditya Jain (CA) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma (CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80Section 80I

power by that entity. Further, the assessee had shown net losses from these two units after claiming depreciation. Thus, there being no profit, deduction u/s 80IA was not allowable to the assessee. It was also observed that the assessee was following different policies for power generating units

Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University, Hissar vs. ITO, Exemption, Rohtak

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2225/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year 2018-19]

Section 10Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151

filed along with the return. For example, sub-section-7 of section 80IA of the Act for claiming deduction u/s 80IA(1) of the Actduring the material period i.e. AY 2018-19 laid down a conditionthat the deduction under sub-section (1) from profits and gains derived from an undertaking

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-11(3), Bangalore vs. M/S. Gopalan Enterprises (India) Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 924/BANG/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 May 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri B. Chattraj, Advocate
Section 260ASection 80I

tenant, namely M/s.I-Flex Solutions is occupying more than 50% of the total constructed area. 3. Aggrieved by the denial of benefit of deduction u/s 80IA(4)(iii) of the I.T.Act, the assessee preferred appeals to the first appellate authority. The CIT(A) following his order for assessment year ... read with Rules 18C of the I.T.Rules and Notification dated 31.07.2007. The two reasons of the A.O. for the denial of benefit of deduction u/s 80IA(4)(iii) of the I.T.Act read as follows:- (i) One Tenant,i.e., M/s.I-Flex solutions is occupying 1,38,000 sq.ft. out of total constructed

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-11(3), Bangalore vs. M/S. Gopalan Enterprises (India) Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 923/BANG/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 May 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri B. Chattraj, Advocate
Section 260ASection 80I

tenant, namely M/s.I-Flex Solutions is occupying more than 50% of the total constructed area. 3. Aggrieved by the denial of benefit of deduction u/s 80IA(4)(iii) of the I.T.Act, the assessee preferred appeals to the first appellate authority. The CIT(A) following his order for assessment year ... read with Rules 18C of the I.T.Rules and Notification dated 31.07.2007. The two reasons of the A.O. for the denial of benefit of deduction u/s 80IA(4)(iii) of the I.T.Act read as follows:- (i) One Tenant,i.e., M/s.I-Flex solutions is occupying 1,38,000 sq.ft. out of total constructed

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-11(3), Bangalore vs. M/S. Gopalan Enterprises (India) Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 922/BANG/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 May 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri B. Chattraj, Advocate
Section 260ASection 80I

tenant, namely M/s.I-Flex Solutions is occupying more than 50% of the total constructed area. 3. Aggrieved by the denial of benefit of deduction u/s 80IA(4)(iii) of the I.T.Act, the assessee preferred appeals to the first appellate authority. The CIT(A) following his order for assessment year ... read with Rules 18C of the I.T.Rules and Notification dated 31.07.2007. The two reasons of the A.O. for the denial of benefit of deduction u/s 80IA(4)(iii) of the I.T.Act read as follows:- (i) One Tenant,i.e., M/s.I-Flex solutions is occupying 1,38,000 sq.ft. out of total constructed

DCIT Central Circle-7(2), Mumbai vs. Ruchi Infrastructure Limited, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 389/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Malav Sheth, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Govindrao J. Ninawe, Sr. D/R
Section 143(3)Section 148ASection 80ISection 80i

I.T.A. No. 388 & 389/Mum/2025 2 5. Subsequently, on the basis of the revenue audit objections, stating that the assessee company has been claiming deduction u/s 80IA of the Act on captive jetty, the AO formed a belief that the income has escaped assessment by way of wrong claim of deduction ... material evidence has been brought on record and the reopening has been done on erroneous facts as the assessee never claimed any deduction u/s 80IA of the Act on captive jetty at Jamnagar. After considering the facts and the submissions and finding that the reopening was done on wrong facts

DCIT Central Circle-7(2), Mumbai vs. Ruchi Infrastructure Limited, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 388/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Malav Sheth, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Govindrao J. Ninawe, Sr. D/R
Section 143(3)Section 148ASection 80ISection 80i

I.T.A. No. 388 & 389/Mum/2025 2 5. Subsequently, on the basis of the revenue audit objections, stating that the assessee company has been claiming deduction u/s 80IA of the Act on captive jetty, the AO formed a belief that the income has escaped assessment by way of wrong claim of deduction ... material evidence has been brought on record and the reopening has been done on erroneous facts as the assessee never claimed any deduction u/s 80IA of the Act on captive jetty at Jamnagar. After considering the facts and the submissions and finding that the reopening was done on wrong facts

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Corporate Circle-1, Coimbatore vs. M/S C R I Pumps Private Limited, Coimbatore

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed…

ITA 267/CHNY/2025[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 May 2025

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.265/Chny/2025, Assessment Years: 2014-15 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.266/Chny/2025, Assessment Years: 2015-16 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.267/Chny/2025, Assessment Years: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Saujanya Ranjan, IRS
Section 40A(2)(a)

energy consumed by the high tension services of the manufacturing division of the company. Profit of the wind mill undertaking was claimed as deduction u/s 80IA. The assessee had entered into a “Energy Wheeling Agreement” with Tamil Nadu Electricity Board for Wheeling and Banking the surplus energy

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Corporate Circle-1, Coimbatore vs. M/S C R I Pumps Private Limited, Coimbatore

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed…

ITA 266/CHNY/2025[2015]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 May 2025

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.265/Chny/2025, Assessment Years: 2014-15 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.266/Chny/2025, Assessment Years: 2015-16 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.267/Chny/2025, Assessment Years: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Saujanya Ranjan, IRS
Section 40A(2)(a)

energy consumed by the high tension services of the manufacturing division of the company. Profit of the wind mill undertaking was claimed as deduction u/s 80IA. The assessee had entered into a “Energy Wheeling Agreement” with Tamil Nadu Electricity Board for Wheeling and Banking the surplus energy

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Corporate Circle-1, Coimbatore vs. M/S C R I Pumps Private Limited, Coimbatore

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed…

ITA 265/CHNY/2025[2014]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 May 2025

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.265/Chny/2025, Assessment Years: 2014-15 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.266/Chny/2025, Assessment Years: 2015-16 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.267/Chny/2025, Assessment Years: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Saujanya Ranjan, IRS
Section 40A(2)(a)

energy consumed by the high tension services of the manufacturing division of the company. Profit of the wind mill undertaking was claimed as deduction u/s 80IA. The assessee had entered into a “Energy Wheeling Agreement” with Tamil Nadu Electricity Board for Wheeling and Banking the surplus energy

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle - 1, Aurangabad vs. M/S. M.B. Patil Construction Ltd, Aurangabad

In the result, the cross appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 2078/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Kalrav MehrotraFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari &
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 40A(3)Section 68Section 801ASection 80I

u/s 80IA of the IT Act. It was submitted by Ld. AR that one of the main reason for denying the benefit of deduction u/s 80IA of the IT Act was non-filing of the audit report in Form 10CCB & relevant agreements. Even Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the above disallowance ... both the sides and perused the material available on record including the case laws furnished by both the parties. We find that the deduction u/s 80IA of Rs.2,73,36,424/- claimed by the assessee was denied on various grounds, i.e. the assessee is a works contractor & not engaged