“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

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax -Erstwhile 26(1) Now DCIT41(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Gulemark Tpl Joint Venture, Mumbai

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

ITA 3019/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: FixedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

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

Gulermak Tpl Joint Venture, Mumbai vs. The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Commissioner of Income Tax-Appeals), Mumbai

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

ITA 2876/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: FixedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

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

Gulermak Tpl Joint Ventre, Mumbai vs. The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Commissioner of Income Tax-Appeals), Mumbai

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

ITA 2875/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: FixedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

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

B vs. R Ssg Road Projects Private Limited, Hyderabadvs.DCIT., Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1208/HYD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Jan 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri M. Bhupal Gowd, C.AFor Respondent: : Shri Vamshi Krishna, SR-DR

Section 143(1)Section 80Section 80I

Rs.77967920/-. The extended due date for filing the audit report in Form 10CCB (“audit report”) for claiming deduction u/s 80IA of the Act for A.Y. 2021-22 was 15th February 2022. The auditor of the assessee uploaded the audit report from their Income Tax portal on the extended due date

Sanghi Industries Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle -3 (1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 104/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Choksi, ARFor Respondent: Ms. K. Haritha, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 80ISection 92CSection 92E

without appreciating the fact that owing to losses, there is no claim of 2 ITA (TP) 104/Hyd/2022 Sanghi Industries Limited deduction U/s. 80IA in return of income, and no addition whatsoever was warranted to the total income. 3. That in the facts and circumstances of the case ... justified in making addition of downward adjustment of Rs. 154,38,00,527/- to the final assessable income instead of re-computing the deduction U/s. 80IA(8) afresh, without appreciating the fact the appellant did not claim any deduction U/s. 80IA in the return of income. 4. That

M/S. Larsen & Tourbro Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2) & 5(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 1010/MUM/2022[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2025AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeassessment Year : 2004-05 M/S. Larsen & Toubro Ltd., Deputy Commissioner Of L&T House, Income Tax, N.M. Marg, Vs. Central Circle-5(4), Ballard Estate, Fort, [Erstwhile Income Tax Officer-2(2), Mumbai] Mumbai 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Pan : Aaacl0140P Nariman Point, Mumbai (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry &For Respondent: Dr. K.R. Subhash, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80Section 80HSection 80I

u/s 80IA of the Act in respect of captive power generation unit. The Ld A.R submitted that the assessee did not claim any deduction u/s 80IA for captive power generation unit in this year. The Ld D.R also could not controvert this factual aspect presented by the Ld A.R. Hence ... submitted that the assessee has furnished reply annexing the Certificate in Form 10CCB obtained from a Chartered Accountant and also computation of deduction u/s 80IA for each of the project. The Ld A.R referred to pages 262 to 271 of the paper book in this regard. He submitted that

Holiday Triangle Travel Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 67/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dilip Shivpuri, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 56(2)(viib)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, AM vk

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad vs. Koya and Company Construction Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals of Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 918/HYD/2019[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Jan 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rahul Singhania, Sr.D.R

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 254Section 801ASection 801A(4)Section 80I

examine the contracts for features of development / construction, operating / maintenance, financial involvement, defect collection in liability period and grant deduction u/s 80Ia of the Act for contracts containing these features and further directed that these contracts are to be segregated from other contracts, which are in nature of pure work ... contracts and are not entitled for deduction u/s 80IA of the Act, being hit by explanation under Section 80IA(13) of the Act. 3.1. As per the directions of the Tribunal, the Assessing Officer has initiated proceedings u/s 143(3) and notice u/s 143(2) along with questionnaire calling

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad vs. Koya and Company Construction Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals of Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 917/HYD/2019[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Jan 2025AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rahul Singhania, Sr.D.R

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 254Section 80I

examine the contracts for features of development / construction, operating / maintenance, financial involvement, defect collection in liability period and grant deduction u/s 80IA of the Act for contracts containing these features and further directed that these contracts are to be segregated from other contracts, which are in nature of pure work ... contracts and are not entitled for deduction u/s 80IA of the Act, being hit by explanation under Section 80IA(13) of the Act. 3. 1. As per the directions of the Tribunal, the Assessing Officer has initiated proceedings u/s 143(3) and notice u/s 143(2) along with questionnaire calling

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad vs. Koya and Company Construction Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals of Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 916/HYD/2019[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Jan 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rahul Singhania, Sr.D.R

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 254Section 801ASection 801A(4)Section 80I

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolhapur vs. Mahalaxmi Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd., Kolhapur

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

ITA 979/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 80Section 801ASection 80I

stated in the sub- section? Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld.CIT(A) has erred in allowing deduction u/s 80IA(4) of the IT Act, 1961 to the assessee ignoring the fact that the assessee being a contractor, is not eligible for such deduction ... order for immediately preceding AY 2017-18, in ITA No. 1450/PUN/2023, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee is eligible to claim deduction u/s 80IA(4) of the Act. We have perused the order of the Tribunal for AY 2017-18 (supra). The relevant findings and observations of the Tribunal

Naba Diganta Water Management Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir. 2(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 434/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 143(3)

commissioned in FY 2010-11 for the relevant to assessment years 2011-12 and such it was entitled to claim of deduction u/s 80IA of the Act for having set up the infrastructure facility. But the same could not be claimed till A.Y. 2015-16 due to losses. The assessee ... first time in AY 2016-17 and has accordingly filed requisite audit report in Form 10CCB. The assessee made its claim deduction u/s 80IA of the Act in AY 2017-18 of Rs. 4,36,30,100/- vide letter dated 31.10.2017 filed in the office of AO stating therein that

DCIT-1(2)1, Mumbai. vs. Patil Construction and Infrastructure Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 4944/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Hon'Ble & Ms. Padmavathy S., Hon'Bleι.Τ.Α. No.4940/Mum/2024

For Appellant: Mandar VaidyaFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. D/R

Section 801A

Department are inter- related and inter-connected and relates to challenging the order of the 1d. CIT(A) in allowing the claim of deduction u/s 80IA of Act, to the assessee. Therefore, we have decided to dispose of all the grounds by way of this present consolidated order ... relied upon the orders passed by the AO. It was submitted that Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in allowing the claim of deduction u/s 80IA of the Act as the assessee had not fulfilled the contentions laid down for claiming the deduction and thus wholly relied upon the order

DCIT-1(2)1, Mumbai. vs. Patil Construction and Infrastructure Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 4942/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Hon’Ble & Ms. Padmavathy S., Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Mandar VaidyaFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. D/R

Section 801A

order of the ld. CIT(A) in allowing the claim of deduction order of the ld. CIT(A) in allowing the claim of deduction u/s 80IA of Act, to the assessee. Therefore, we have u/s 80IA of Act, to the assessee. Therefore, we u/s 80IA of Act, to the assessee ... submitted that Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in allowing submitted that Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in allowing the claim of deduction u/s 80IA of the Act as the the claim of deduction u/s 80IA of the Act as the the claim of deduction u/s 80IA

DCIT-1(2)1, Mumbai vs. Patil Construction and Infrastructure Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 4940/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Hon’Ble & Ms. Padmavathy S., Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Mandar VaidyaFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. D/R

Section 801A

Sadbhav Engineering Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle 1(3), Ahmedabad

ITA 235/AHD/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarsr. No. Appellant Respondent 1-7 It(Ss)A.No./ Asstt.Year 170 To 175 & 235/Ahd/2021 Asst. Year 2012- 13 To 2018-19 Sadbhav Engineering Ltd. Nr. Havmour Restaurant Navrangpura Ahmedbad. Dcit, Cent.Cir.1(3) Ahmedabad. 8-14 183 To 189/Ahd/2021 Asst. Year 2012- 14 To 2018-19 Pan : Aadcs 0852 Q Dcit, Cent.Cir.1(3) Ahmedabad. Sadbhav Engineering Ltd. Nr. Havmour Restaurant Navrangpura Ahmedabad. (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By Shri Dhinal Shah, Ar Revenue By: Shri H. Phani Raju, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 18/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 10/01/2025 आदेश/Order Per Bench: The Above Cross-Appeals Of The Assessee & The Revenue Are Against The Consolidated Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals) 11, Ahmedabad All Dated 04.08.2021 Passed Under Section 250(6) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act" For Short) For The

For Respondent: Shri H. Phani Raju, CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250(6)Section 69ASection 80I

u/s 139(1) of the Act, the AO noted that in certain assessment years before us, the assessee had been denied the said deduction u/s 80IA(4) of the Act in scrutiny assessment originally done u/s 143(3) of the Act but noted that the same was allowed in appeal ... Ld.CIT(A). The AO accordingly allowed such claims of deduction u/s 80IA(4) in those assessment years. For the remaining years he disallowed the deduction claimed u/s 80IA(4) of the Act commensurate to that claimed as per original return, finding the assessee ineligible to the same. Thus in effect

M/S. Shree Balaji Engicons Pvt. Ltd., Belpahar, Jharsuguda vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(1), Sambalpur

In the result, appeals of the assesee in IT(SS)A No

ITA 89/CTK/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack07 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalit(Ss)A No.77/Ctk/2023

Section 153ASection 194CSection 80Section 801A

justify that the projects carried on by the JVs were eligible infra structural projects and were therefore eligible for claiming the benefit of deduction u/s 80IA of the Act are also already been annexed along with paper book as filed before the Hon'ble Bench: S. No Brief description ... were eligible infrastructural projects as per section 80IA of the Act. 3.3.1] Before going into the main issue regarding allowability of deduction u/s 80IA of the .members of the JV, it is imperative to understand the status and legal position of "Joint Venture" vis-a-vis Income

M/S. Shree Balaji Engicons Pvt. Ltd., Belpahar, Jharsuguda vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(1), Sambalpur

In the result, appeals of the assesee in IT(SS)A No

ITA 88/CTK/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack07 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalit(Ss)A No.77/Ctk/2023

Section 153ASection 194CSection 80Section 801A

Asst. CIT, Central Circle, Sambalpur, Aayakar Bhawan vs. Shree Balaji Engicon Limited, Belpahar Rs

In the result, appeals of the assesee in IT(SS)A No

ITA 320/CTK/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack07 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalit(Ss)A No.77/Ctk/2023

Section 153ASection 194CSection 80Section 801A

M/S. Shree Baalaji Engicons Limited, Jharsuguda vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax ( Central Circle-1(1), Sambalpur

In the result, appeals of the assesee in IT(SS)A No

ITA 296/CTK/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack07 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalit(Ss)A No.77/Ctk/2023

Section 153ASection 194CSection 80Section 801A