← 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

DCIT, CC-2(2), Kolkata, East Kolkata vs. M/S Spml Infra Limited, South East Delhi

The appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2118/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2026AY 2017-18
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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-20, Jhandewalan vs. Sterling Agro Industries Limited, Delhi

In the result Appeal of the Revenue for Assessment Year 2018-

ITA 4716/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shrimanish Agarwal

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 144BSection 14ASection 80Section 80I

provided relief Court in assessee's own case in which the Hon'ble High Court has to the assessee on the issue of deduction u/s 80IA of the Act without has appreciating been recommended the fact the said judgment has not been accepted by the department and an SLP against ... quantum by ignoring the express provision of Section 80IA(5) providing for were the of deduction as if the business is eligible for deduction u/s 80IA(1) year only source of income of the assessee during the period between initial assessment profits and of relevant other businesses? assessment year thus

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-20, Jhandewalan vs. Sterling Agro Industries Limited, Delhi

In the result Appeal of the Revenue for Assessment Year 2018-

ITA 4714/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shrimanish Agarwal

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 144BSection 14ASection 80Section 80I

provided relief Court in assessee's own case in which the Hon'ble High Court has to the assessee on the issue of deduction u/s 80IA of the Act without has appreciating been recommended the fact the said judgment has not been accepted by the department and an SLP against ... quantum by ignoring the express provision of Section 80IA(5) providing for were the of deduction as if the business is eligible for deduction u/s 80IA(1) year only source of income of the assessee during the period between initial assessment profits and of relevant other businesses? assessment year thus

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-20, Jhandewalan vs. Sterling Agro Industries Limited, Delhi

In the result Appeal of the Revenue for Assessment Year 2018-

ITA 4713/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shrimanish Agarwal

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 144BSection 14ASection 80Section 80I

provided relief Court in assessee's own case in which the Hon'ble High Court has to the assessee on the issue of deduction u/s 80IA of the Act without has appreciating been recommended the fact the said judgment has not been accepted by the department and an SLP against ... quantum by ignoring the express provision of Section 80IA(5) providing for were the of deduction as if the business is eligible for deduction u/s 80IA(1) year only source of income of the assessee during the period between initial assessment profits and of relevant other businesses? assessment year thus

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(2), Delhi vs. Crystal Crop Protection Limited, Delhi

Accordingly, we find no error in the order of Ld. CIT(A) which is hereby uphold. Accordingly, grounds of appeal No. 2 & 3 of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2379/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.2330/Del/2023 (Assessment Year 2018-19) Dy. Cit, Crystal Crop Protection Circle-4(2), Delhi. Limited, Vs. B-95, Wazirpur, Industrial Area Delhi, Delhi-110052. Pan-Aabcj3574E (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.159/Del/2023 Arising Out Of Ita No.2330/Del/2023 (Assessment Year 2018-19) Crystal Crop Protection Dy. Cit, Limited, Circle-4(2), Delhi. B-95, Wazirpur, Vs. Industrial Area Delhi, Delhi-110052. Pan-Aabcj3574E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri S.S. Nagar, Ca Department By Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 30.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09.01.2026 C.O. No.159/Del/2023 Dcit Vs. Crystal Crop Protection Limited O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: The Captioned Two Appeals Are Filed By The Revenue & Cross Objection Is Filed By The Assessee For Following Assessment Years.

Section 1Section 143(3)Section 148Section 37(1)

amounting to Rs.65,94,723/- on account of re- allocation of indirect expenses for the purposes of allowability of deduction u/s 80IA of the Act done by the AO. 18. Heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. The AO alleged that assessee is having a power ... debited and verified by the C.O. No.159/Del/2023 DCIT vs. Crystal Crop Protection Limited auditor and after obtaining the audit report, assessee has claimed deduction u/s 80IA of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) has allowed the deduction u/s 80IA as claimed by the assessee by making following observations in para

DCIT Circle 4(2), New Delhi vs. Crystal Crop Protection Limited, Delhi

Accordingly, we find no error in the order of Ld. CIT(A) which is hereby uphold. Accordingly, grounds of appeal No. 2 & 3 of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2330/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.2330/Del/2023 (Assessment Year 2018-19) Dy. Cit, Crystal Crop Protection Circle-4(2), Delhi. Limited, Vs. B-95, Wazirpur, Industrial Area Delhi, Delhi-110052. Pan-Aabcj3574E (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.159/Del/2023 Arising Out Of Ita No.2330/Del/2023 (Assessment Year 2018-19) Crystal Crop Protection Dy. Cit, Limited, Circle-4(2), Delhi. B-95, Wazirpur, Vs. Industrial Area Delhi, Delhi-110052. Pan-Aabcj3574E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri S.S. Nagar, Ca Department By Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 30.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09.01.2026 C.O. No.159/Del/2023 Dcit Vs. Crystal Crop Protection Limited O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: The Captioned Two Appeals Are Filed By The Revenue & Cross Objection Is Filed By The Assessee For Following Assessment Years.

Section 1Section 143(3)Section 148Section 37(1)

amounting to Rs.65,94,723/- on account of re- allocation of indirect expenses for the purposes of allowability of deduction u/s 80IA of the Act done by the AO. 18. Heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. The AO alleged that assessee is having a power ... debited and verified by the C.O. No.159/Del/2023 DCIT vs. Crystal Crop Protection Limited auditor and after obtaining the audit report, assessee has claimed deduction u/s 80IA of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) has allowed the deduction u/s 80IA as claimed by the assessee by making following observations in para

Pg Foils Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1581/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Tr Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 801A

against the law, equity and justice. 2. The Ld. A.O. has erred in law and on facts in making disallowance of deduction U/S 80IA of Rs.30,44,833/-. 3. The Ld. A.O. erred in law and on facts in making disallowance of Rs.4003808/-u/s 14A. 4. The Ld. A.O. erred

Pg Foils Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1580/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Tr Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 801A

against the law, equity and justice. 2. The Ld. A.O. has erred in law and on facts in making disallowance of deduction U/S 80IA of Rs.30,44,833/-. 3. The Ld. A.O. erred in law and on facts in making disallowance of Rs.4003808/-u/s 14A. 4. The Ld. A.O. erred

DCIT-1(2)1, Mumbai vs. Patil Construction and Infrastucture Limited., Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5908/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Akash Kumar (vritually appear), CAFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 801ASection 80I

facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in allowing claim of deduction u/s 80IA of the Act amounting to Rs.22,25,87,471/- and Rs. 36,46,45,037/-." 2. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances ... report have also qualified for such claim. Further, the Revenue has not accepted the order of the Settlement Commission allowing the claim of deduction u/s 80IA for various assessment years till 2012-13 and filed appeals before the Hon'ble High Court which are pending before the Hon'ble High

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

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5907/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Akash Kumar (vritually appear), CAFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 801ASection 80I

facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in allowing claim of deduction u/s 80IA of the Act amounting to Rs.22,25,87,471/- and Rs. 36,46,45,037/-." 2. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances ... report have also qualified for such claim. Further, the Revenue has not accepted the order of the Settlement Commission allowing the claim of deduction u/s 80IA for various assessment years till 2012-13 and filed appeals before the Hon'ble High Court which are pending before the Hon'ble High

M/S Thdc India Limited, Rishikesh vs. PCIT, Dehradun

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 69/DDN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun24 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 270ASection 80

general in nature, needs no separate adjudication hence, dismissed. 6. Ground of appeal No.2 is with regard to the reduction in the deduction u/s 80IA to the extent of INR 3,57,87,308/- by holding that certain income is not derived from the undertaking and thus not eligible ... deduction u/s 80IA of the Act. 7. Ld.AR for the assessee submits that assessee has claimed u/s 80- IA of the Act on interest received from advances to employees of INR 1,10,09,815/-; rent receipts of INR 30,57,729/-; sundry receipts

DCIT(CC)-8(3), Mumbai vs. Jsw Energy Limited, Mumbai

In the result the appeals filed by the revenue for assessment

ITA 2767/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 143(3)

facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition made on disallowance of deduction u/s 80IA of Rs.469,81,46,793/- in respect of its SBU II? 12. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... Maharashtra (Ratnagiri Unit) SBU-3. It was also noted that, for the year under consideration, the plants situated in Karnataka was claiming deduction u/s 80IA(10) of the Act. 4. 4. The Ld.TPO noted that for the year under consideration, assessee had entered into the following international transaction with

DCIT(CC)-8(3), Mumbai vs. Jsw Energy Limited, Mumbai

In the result the appeals filed by the revenue for assessment

ITA 2367/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 143(3)

facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition made on disallowance of deduction u/s 80IA of Rs.469,81,46,793/- in respect of its SBU II? 12. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... Maharashtra (Ratnagiri Unit) SBU-3. It was also noted that, for the year under consideration, the plants situated in Karnataka was claiming deduction u/s 80IA(10) of the Act. 4. 4. The Ld.TPO noted that for the year under consideration, assessee had entered into the following international transaction with

DCIT(CC)-8(3), Mumbai vs. Jsw Energy Limited, Mumbai

In the result the appeals filed by the revenue for assessment

ITA 2366/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 143(3)

facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition made on disallowance of deduction u/s 80IA of Rs.469,81,46,793/- in respect of its SBU II? 12. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... Maharashtra (Ratnagiri Unit) SBU-3. It was also noted that, for the year under consideration, the plants situated in Karnataka was claiming deduction u/s 80IA(10) of the Act. 4. 4. The Ld.TPO noted that for the year under consideration, assessee had entered into the following international transaction with

DCIT(CC)-8(3), Mumbai vs. Jsw Energy Limited, Mumbai

In the result the appeals filed by the revenue for assessment years under consideration stands partly allowed and cross appeals filed by the assesse stands dismissed

ITA 2365/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 143(3)

facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition made on disallowance of deduction u/s 80IA of Rs. 469,81,46,793/- in respect of its SBU II? 12. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... Maharashtra (Ratnagiri Unit) SBU-3. It was also noted that, for the year under consideration, the plants situated in Karnataka was claiming deduction u/s 80IA(10) of the Act. 4.4. The Ld.TPO noted that for the year under consideration, assessee had entered into the following international transaction with

Satia Industries Limited, Muktsar vs. DCIT/ACIT Circle I, Bathinda

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

ITA 702/ASR/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar16 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Kapoor, Adv. &
Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(2)Section 144C(5)Section 80Section 80GSection 80ISection 92C

Rs.62.74 crores) was reduced to Rs. 14,00,93,424/- (calculated @ 24.98% of Rs.56.08 crores) thus resulting in the excess claim of deduction u/s 80IA of Rs.1,67,11,295/- being disallowed and added back to the total income, against which the assessee is in appeal before this tribunal ... reported in 2023 (9) TMI 25 - ITAT MUMBAI (Refer page No 114-142 of PB). It was held that assessee is entitled for deduction u/s. 80IA of the Act in respect of sale of steam from its power plant to non-eligible units. Assessee was justified in recognizing the sale

Srf Limited, Delhi vs. Assistant / Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 10(1), New Delhi, Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 5618/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2021-22
For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Dinodia, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jadhav, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 80Section 92C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES ‘H’: NEW DELHI. BEFORE SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK

Srf Limited, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-10(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 1449/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Dinodia, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jadhav, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 80Section 92C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES ‘H’: NEW DELHI. BEFORE SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK

Srf Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-10(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 1448/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Dinodia, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jadhav, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 80Section 92C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES ‘H’: NEW DELHI. BEFORE SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK

ACIT, Circle-2, Noida vs. Noida Special Economic Zone Authority, Noida

In the result, the assessing officer is directed to allow both the disallowances

ITA 6732/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shripawan Singhand Shribrajesh Kumar Singhआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.6540/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2010-11 (Physical Hearing) Noida Special Economic Zone Authority, बनाम Dcit, Phase-Ii, Dadri Road, Noida, Circle-2, Vs. Uttar Pradesh. Aayakar Bhawan, 2D, A-Block, Sector-24, Pan No.Aaaln0639A Noida, Uttar Pradesh. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.6541/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 Noida Special Economic Zone Authority, बनाम Dcit,Circle-2, Phase-Ii, Dadri Road, Noida, Aayakar Bhawan, 2D, Vs. Uttar Pradesh. A-Block, Sector-24, Noida, Uttar Pradesh. Pan No.Aaaln0639A अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.6732/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 Acit, बनाम Noida Special Economic Zone Authority, Circle-2, Phase-Ii, Dadri Road, Noida, Vs. Aayakar Bhawan, 2D, Uttar Pradesh. A-Block, Sector-24, Noida, Uttar Pradesh. Pan No.Aaaln0639A अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By Shri Ram Avtar Sharma, Ca & Shri Bhupesh Agarwal, Ca Revenue By Ms. Monika Singh, Cit-Dr सुनवाईक"तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 26.11.2025 उ"ोषणाक"तारीख/Pronouncement On 12.12.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per Pawan Singh:

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 34Section 80ASection 80I

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRIPAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBERAND SHRIBRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT