“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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sabir, Sew & Prasad Jv, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(1), Hyderabad

ITA 212/HYD/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Feb 2025AY 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri A. Srinivas, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Sr.DR

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 801ASection 801A(4)Section 80I

coming to the merits of the case, it was submitted by the ld.AR that as per the Ld.CIT(A), to claim deduction u/s 80IA of the Act, the assessee was required to fulfill, seven specific activities as captured by him in 7.14 of his order, which ... development, engineering, construction, maintenance, financial involvement, defect correction of the contract during the warranty period and as such, assessee is not eligible for deduction u/s 80IA of the Act. For the above-mentioned purposes, 1d.AR has drawn our attention to the Explanation below Sub-section (4) of 80IA

Amit Kumar, Panipat Haryana vs. DCIT, NFAC (Delhi)

ITA 193/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

Section 143(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : F : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMITABH

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-8, Pune vs. Advik Hi-Tech Pvt. Ltd., Pune

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

ITA 1330/PUN/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Sharad A. Shah &For Respondent: Shri Rohit S. Tapadiya

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35Section 35(1)Section 80GSection 80I

this regard is unjustified. It was submitted by Ld. DR that Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC has not conducted any enquiry before allowing the deduction u/s 80IA and 80IC as claimed by the assessee. Accordingly, it was requested by Ld. DR to confirm the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer ... appearing from the side of the assessee submitted before us that the deduction u/s 80IA of Rs.2,77,33,581/- and u/s 80IC of Rs.7,17,05,933/- was duly claimed by the assessee in his return of income. It was further submitted that Ld. Assessing Officer/CPC has also

Advik Hi Tech Pvt Ltd, Pune vs. Dy.Comm.of Income Tax, Circle 8, Pune, Akurdi Pune

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

ITA 1158/PUN/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1158/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21 Advik Hi Tech Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Circle-8, Pune. Gat No.357, Plot No.99, Village- Kharabwadi, Tal.- Khed, Chakan- 410501. Pan : Aacca3106E Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1330/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21 Dcit, Circle-8, Pune. Vs. Advik Hi Tech Pvt. Ltd., Gat No.357, Plot No.99, Village- Kharabwadi, Tal.- Khed, Chakan- 410501. Pan : Aacca3106E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharad A. Shah & Shri Rohit S. Tapadiya Revenue By : Shri Amol Khairnar Date Of Hearing : 21.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.02.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: These Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Dated 16.10.2023 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2020-21 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri Sharad A. Shah &For Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35Section 35(1)Section 80GSection 80I

No.1330/PUN/2023 [R] It was submitted by Ld. DR that Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC has not conducted any enquiry before allowing the deduction u/s 80IA and 80IC as claimed by the assessee. Accordingly, it was requested by Ld. DR to confirm the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer ... appearing from the side of the assessee submitted before us that the deduction u/s 80IA of Rs.2,77,33,581/- and u/s 80IC of Rs.7,17,05,933/- was duly claimed by the assessee in his return of income. It was further submitted that Ld. Assessing Officer/CPC has also

ACIT Non Corporate Circle 8(1)-Ltu-2, Chennai vs. M/S. Ashok Leyland Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 561/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

Section 35Section 35(1)(iv)

Nos.7 to 15 of the assessee’s appeal and Ground No.3 of the Revenue appeal relates to the claim of the assessee regarding deduction u/s 80IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter in short "the Act”) for its plant/unit at Pantnagar. 5.1 The facts as noted are that

M/S. Ashok Leyland Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT Non Corporate Circle 8(1)-Ltu-2, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 554/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

Section 35Section 35(1)(iv)

ACIT., Circle-8(1), Hyderabad vs. Ncc Hes Jv, Madhapur

ITA 689/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramarao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. M. Narmada, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80I

Income for Asst. Year 2017-18 on 27.10.2017, computing total income at Rs.11,56,60,835/- and claiming the same as a deduction u/s 80IA, with income u/s 115JC also computed at Rs.11,56,60,835/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS, and a notice u/s ... details, to which the company responded. Another notice u/s 142(1), dated 26.11.2019, was issued, requiring the assessee to substantiate the claim of deduction u/s 80IA with necessary evidence and to provide details of other construction expenses, including the ledger account and TDS details, which the assessee duly furnished. After

ACIT., Circle-8(1), Hyderabad vs. Ncc Hes Jv, Madhapur

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 688/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramarao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. M. Narmada, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80I

ACIT., Circle-8(1), Hyderabad vs. Ncc Hes Jv, Hyderabad

ITA 682/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramarao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. M. Narmada, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80I

M/S. Merino Industries Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 12(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 292/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A No.174/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Circle-12(1), Kolkata…………………….................................……Revenue Vs. M/S Merino Industries Ltd.…………....................................……...…..…..Assessee 5, Alexandra Court, 60/1, Chowringhee Road, Kolkata – 700020. [Pan: Aaacc9186C] I.T.A No.292/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Merino Industries Ltd …………………….…….......................…… Assessee 5, Alexandra Court, 60/1, Chowringhee Road, Kolkata – 700020. [Pan: Aaacc9186C] Vs. Dcit, Circle-12(1), Kolkata.…….................................……....…........….. Revenue Appearances By: Shri Shyam Sundar Jha, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Prakash Nath Barnwal, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 12, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 06, 2025 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Are Cross-Appeals, One By The Assessee & The Other By The Revenue Against The Common Order Dated 09.10.2018 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). Since The Facts & Issued Involved In Both The Appeals Are Identical & Both The Appeals Are Arising Out Of The Same

Section 2(22)Section 250Section 801A

company had computed book profit u/s 115JB at Rs.21,01,31,281/-. During the assessment year, the assessee company claimed deduction u/s 80IA of the Act for generation of steam energy. The return was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s 143(2) was issued on 07.09.2015. The Assessing Officer noted ... assessee’s appeal are hereby allowed, whereas, the appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed. Issue relating to claim of deduction u/s 80IA of the Act - The assessee vide its Ground No.4, 6 to 11 has contested the 16. action of the lower authorities in not allowing the deduction claimed

DCIT, Circle - 12(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Merino Industries Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 174/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 2(22)Section 250Section 801A

company had computed book profit u/s 115JB at Rs.21,01,31,281/-. During the assessment year, the assessee company claimed deduction u/s 80IA of the Act for generation of steam energy. The return was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s 143(2) was issued on 07.09.2015. The Assessing Officer noted ... assessee's appeal are hereby allowed, whereas, the appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed. Issue relating to claim of deduction u/s 80IA of the Act - 16. The assessee vide its Ground No.4, 6 to 11 has contested the action of the lower authorities in not allowing the deduction claimed

Hyderabad Castings Private Limited, Secunderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 6/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad04 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Bleshri Manjunatha. G. Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Akshay Surana, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Harshita Chouhan, Sr. AR

Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)(a)Section 801ASection 80I

Tribunal. 6. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the ld. CIT(A) is erred in sustaining the addition towards disallowance of deduction u/s 80IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961, even though the assessee has satisfied conditions for claiming such deduction. He, therefore, submitted that the issue ... assessee filed return of income as per section 139(1), then the assessee is eligible for deduction u/s 80IA of the Act, provided other conditions are satisfied. In the present case, the objection of the AO is belated filing of an audit report in Form 10CCB and according

Madhucon Projects Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 762/HYD/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri B. Balakrishna, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 153A

claim of Page 4 of 48 ITA Nos.1238 of 2019, 12 to 14 of 2020 723, 761 & 762 of 2020 Madhucon Projects Ltd deduction u/s 80IA of the I.T. Act, 1961 which is already covered by the decision of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the A.Ys ... that this Tribunal has already decided the issue that the disallowance of expenditure will enhance the eligible business income of the assessee for deduction u/s 80IA of the I.T. Act, 1961. 4. On the other hand, the learned DR has submitted that the Assessing Officer has made reference

Madhucon Projects Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 761/HYD/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri B. Balakrishna, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 153A

ACIT Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad vs. Madhucon Projects Limited, Hyderabad

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

ITA 723/HYD/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri B. Balakrishna, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 153A

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad vs. Madhucon Projects Limited, Hyderabad

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

ITA 13/HYD/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Feb 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri B. Balakrishna, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 153A

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad vs. Madhucon Projects Limited, Hyderabad

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

ITA 12/HYD/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Feb 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri B. Balakrishna, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 153A

Madhucon Projects Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2322/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.2322/Hyd/2018 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14) Madhucon Projects Ltd Vs. Dy. Cit Hyderabad Central Circle 2(1) Pan:Aabcm4757A Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri B Balakrishna, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 21/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 04/02/2025 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri B Balakrishna, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80I

filed its return of income for the year under consideration on 29/09/2013 declaring total income of Rs.13,42,56,510/- after claiming deduction u/s 80IA of the I.T. Act, 1961 at Rs.42,09,58,377/-. The scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act was completed on 6/12/2016 ... includes interest, non- operating income and other income. However, in computation, the profit before the tax taken for arriving at income eligible for deduction u/s 80IA of the Act included all other income earned from sale of metals, scrap and other income excluding interest income, the learned Pr. Cit observed

Madhucon Projects Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3, Hyd, Hyderabad

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

ITA 1328/HYD/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Feb 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri B. Balakrishna, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 153A

Dy. Commissioner of Income -Tax Ershtwhile 26(1), Now DCIT-41(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Gulermak Tpl Joint Venture, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee and the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3020/MUM/2022[2018-2019]Status: FixedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2025AY 2018-2019

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

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry, Sr. Advocate & Hiten ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Kishor Dule, CIT D/R

Section 80I

Statutory Authority and LMRCL does not fit in any of the four categories. 6. The assessee filed detailed reply justifying its claim of deduction u/s 80IA of the Act which did not find any favour with the AO who denied the claim of deduction. The denial was confirmed ... business of developing and operating and maintaining or developing, operating and maintaining any infrastructural facility which fulfils the condition for the claim of deduction u/s 80IA of the Act. 8.1. Moreover, the Gujarat Infrastructure Development Act, 1999, contains detailed provisions of awarding contract for infrastructural development within the State through