← 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

M/S. Housing Develop, Ment Finance Corpn. Ltd, Mumbai vs. The Addl CIT RG-1(1), Mumbai

ITA 287/MUM/2005[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2024AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri Girish Agrawal & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH

M/S. Housing Develop, Ment Finance Corpn. Ltd, Mumbai vs. The Addl CIT RG 1(1), Mumbai

ITA 286/MUM/2005[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2024AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri Girish Agrawal & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(viii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH

DCIT Cir 1(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Housing Development Finance Corpn. Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 7532/MUM/2004[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2024AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri Girish Agrawal & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)(viii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH

M/S. Housing Development Finance Corp. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir. 1(1), Mumbai

ITA 7447/MUM/2004[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2024AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri Girish Agrawal & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(viii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH

DCIT, CC -1(4), Mumbai vs. M/S. Hindalco Industries Ltd., Mumbai

Accordingly, there is no substance raised by the department and the same is dismissed

ITA 619/KOL/2007[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jul 2024AY 2003-04
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 80Section 80I

unit as against selling price of power to Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. 79. The assessee company has made a claim of deduction u/s 80IA in respect of its power plant at Hirakud, Orissa amounting to Rs. 17,86,56,581. This is a matter of fact that power generated ... unit as Transfer price to Aluminium unit for computing deduction u/s 80(IA). Assessing officer denied the entire claim of deduction u/s 80IA by adopting the Transfer price at which small part of power generated was sold to Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. which was at 77 paisa per unit

M/S. Hindalco Industries Ltd.(Earlier Known As Indian Aluminium Company Ltd), Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC -1(4) (Earlier Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-8, Kolkatta), Mumbai

ITA 612/KOL/2007[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jul 2024AY 2003-04
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 80Section 80I

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘C‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & MS PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

The Ramco Cements Ltd., Rajapalayam vs. ACIT Corporate Circle 2, Madurai

The appeals of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 2196/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.957/Chny/2016 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.958/Chny/2016 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2196/Chny/2019 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2014-15) The Ramco Cements Limited Dcit बनाम (Formerly Known As Madras Cements Ltd) Corporate Circle -2, Ramamandiram, / Vs. Madurai. Rajapalayam-626 117. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcm-8375-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1274/Chny/2016 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1363/Chny/2016 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 6. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1897/Chny/2017 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Dcit The Ramco Cements Limited बनाम/ Corporate Circle -2, (Formerly Known As Madras Cements Ltd) Ramamandiram, Vs. Madurai. Rajapalayam-626 117. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcm-8375-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri J.Prabhakar (CA) &For Respondent: Mrs. Jothi Lakshmi Nayak (CIT)-Ld.DR

benchmarked the same using CUP method. The electricity generated by the unit was transferred at Rs.6.52 per unit on the basis of which deduction u/s 80IA was claimed by the assessee. The Ld. TPO proposed the determine ALP of the same at Rs.4.43 per unit. The Ld. TPO while accepting

ACIT Corporate Circle 2, Madurai vs. The Ramco Cements Limited, Chennai

The appeals of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 1897/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.957/Chny/2016 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.958/Chny/2016 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2196/Chny/2019 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2014-15) The Ramco Cements Limited Dcit बनाम (Formerly Known As Madras Cements Ltd) Corporate Circle -2, Ramamandiram, / Vs. Madurai. Rajapalayam-626 117. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcm-8375-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1274/Chny/2016 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1363/Chny/2016 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 6. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1897/Chny/2017 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Dcit The Ramco Cements Limited बनाम/ Corporate Circle -2, (Formerly Known As Madras Cements Ltd) Ramamandiram, Vs. Madurai. Rajapalayam-626 117. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcm-8375-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri J.Prabhakar (CA) &For Respondent: Mrs. Jothi Lakshmi Nayak (CIT)-Ld.DR

benchmarked the same using CUP method. The electricity generated by the unit was transferred at Rs.6.52 per unit on the basis of which deduction u/s 80IA was claimed by the assessee. The Ld. TPO proposed the determine ALP of the same at Rs.4.43 per unit. The Ld. TPO while accepting

The Ramco Cements Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Madurai

The appeals of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 958/CHNY/2016[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jul 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.957/Chny/2016 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.958/Chny/2016 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2196/Chny/2019 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2014-15) The Ramco Cements Limited Dcit बनाम (Formerly Known As Madras Cements Ltd) Corporate Circle -2, Ramamandiram, / Vs. Madurai. Rajapalayam-626 117. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcm-8375-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1274/Chny/2016 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1363/Chny/2016 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 6. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1897/Chny/2017 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Dcit The Ramco Cements Limited बनाम/ Corporate Circle -2, (Formerly Known As Madras Cements Ltd) Ramamandiram, Vs. Madurai. Rajapalayam-626 117. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcm-8375-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri J.Prabhakar (CA) &For Respondent: Mrs. Jothi Lakshmi Nayak (CIT)-Ld.DR

benchmarked the same using CUP method. The electricity generated by the unit was transferred at Rs.6.52 per unit on the basis of which deduction u/s 80IA was claimed by the assessee. The Ld. TPO proposed the determine ALP of the same at Rs.4.43 per unit. The Ld. TPO while accepting

The Ramco Cements Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Madurai

The appeals of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 957/CHNY/2016[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jul 2024AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.957/Chny/2016 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.958/Chny/2016 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2196/Chny/2019 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2014-15) The Ramco Cements Limited Dcit बनाम (Formerly Known As Madras Cements Ltd) Corporate Circle -2, Ramamandiram, / Vs. Madurai. Rajapalayam-626 117. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcm-8375-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1274/Chny/2016 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1363/Chny/2016 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 6. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1897/Chny/2017 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Dcit The Ramco Cements Limited बनाम/ Corporate Circle -2, (Formerly Known As Madras Cements Ltd) Ramamandiram, Vs. Madurai. Rajapalayam-626 117. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcm-8375-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri J.Prabhakar (CA) &For Respondent: Mrs. Jothi Lakshmi Nayak (CIT)-Ld.DR

benchmarked the same using CUP method. The electricity generated by the unit was transferred at Rs.6.52 per unit on the basis of which deduction u/s 80IA was claimed by the assessee. The Ld. TPO proposed the determine ALP of the same at Rs.4.43 per unit. The Ld. TPO while accepting

DCIT, Madurai vs. The Ramco Cements Limited, Rajapalayam

The appeals of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 1363/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.957/Chny/2016 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.958/Chny/2016 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2196/Chny/2019 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2014-15) The Ramco Cements Limited Dcit बनाम (Formerly Known As Madras Cements Ltd) Corporate Circle -2, Ramamandiram, / Vs. Madurai. Rajapalayam-626 117. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcm-8375-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1274/Chny/2016 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1363/Chny/2016 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 6. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1897/Chny/2017 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Dcit The Ramco Cements Limited बनाम/ Corporate Circle -2, (Formerly Known As Madras Cements Ltd) Ramamandiram, Vs. Madurai. Rajapalayam-626 117. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcm-8375-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri J.Prabhakar (CA) &For Respondent: Mrs. Jothi Lakshmi Nayak (CIT)-Ld.DR

benchmarked the same using CUP method. The electricity generated by the unit was transferred at Rs.6.52 per unit on the basis of which deduction u/s 80IA was claimed by the assessee. The Ld. TPO proposed the determine ALP of the same at Rs.4.43 per unit. The Ld. TPO while accepting

DCIT, Madurai vs. The Ramco Cements Ltd., Rajapalayam

The appeals of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 1274/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.957/Chny/2016 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.958/Chny/2016 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2196/Chny/2019 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2014-15) The Ramco Cements Limited Dcit बनाम (Formerly Known As Madras Cements Ltd) Corporate Circle -2, Ramamandiram, / Vs. Madurai. Rajapalayam-626 117. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcm-8375-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1274/Chny/2016 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1363/Chny/2016 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 6. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1897/Chny/2017 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Dcit The Ramco Cements Limited बनाम/ Corporate Circle -2, (Formerly Known As Madras Cements Ltd) Ramamandiram, Vs. Madurai. Rajapalayam-626 117. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcm-8375-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri J.Prabhakar (CA) &For Respondent: Mrs. Jothi Lakshmi Nayak (CIT)-Ld.DR

benchmarked the same using CUP method. The electricity generated by the unit was transferred at Rs.6.52 per unit on the basis of which deduction u/s 80IA was claimed by the assessee. The Ld. TPO proposed the determine ALP of the same at Rs.4.43 per unit. The Ld. TPO while accepting

DCIT (Ltu)-1, Mumbai vs. Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 5935/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am Ι.Τ.Α. No. 5848/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) Aditya Birla Nuvo Limited (Since Amalgamated With Grasim Industries Ltd.), Corporate Finance Division, A2, Aditya Birla Centre, A Wing, 2Nd Floor, S.K. Ahire Marg, Worli, Mumbai-400030. Pan: Aaaci1747H Vs. The Acit- Ltu-1, World Trade Centre, 29Th Floor, Centre-1, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400005. Appellant) : Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No. 5935/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) The Dcit- Ltu-1, World Trade Centre, 29Th Floor, Centre-1, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400005. Aditya Birla Nuvo Limited (Since Amalgamated With Grasim Industries Ltd.), Corporate Finance Division, A2, Aditya Birla Centre, A Wing, 2Nd Floor, S.K. Ahire Marg, Vs. Worli, Mumbai-400030. Pan : Aaaci1747H Respondent) Appellant) Appellant/Assessee By : Shri Ronak Doshi / Riken Shah, Ar Revenue/Respondent By : Shri Ashish Kumar Agrawal, Sr. Dr. Date Of Hearing : 25.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 01.07.2024 Order Per Padmavathy S, Am: These Cross Appeals By The Assessee & The Revenue Are Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-55, Mumbai Dated 27.06.2017 For

For Appellant: Shri Ronak Doshi / Riken ShahFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Kumar Agrawal, Sr
Section 10BSection 115JSection 14ASection 32(1)(iia)Section 37Section 40Section 43BSection 80I

action of AO in adding the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act to book profits u/s 115JB of the Act. Reduction in deduction u/s 80IA of the Act by increasing the input cost by including the component of excise duty / service tax / VAT claimed as CENVAT credit. Upholding the action

Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd (Since Amalgamated With Grasim Industries Limited), Mumbai vs. Asst CIT (Ltu) 1, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5848/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Section 10BSection 115JSection 14ASection 32(1)(iia)Section 37Section 40Section 43BSection 801A

respectfully following the judicial decisions cited supra and considering the facts of the case, hold that the appellant is eligible to claim the deduction u/s 80IA of I.T. Act. 1961, I direct the AO to delete the disallowance of deduction u/s 80IA of Rs.2.17.27.798/- made in the assessment order. Accordingly

Rajasthan Renewable Energy Corporation Ltd., Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur

ITA 387/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh (Addl.CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250

eligible undertakings amounts to Rs 18,49,771. Further, taking the same into account, as per the revised working, it is eligible for deduction u/s 80IA at Rs 8,56,70,349 as against original claim of Rs 12,21,63,337.” However, while passing the order u/s 154, relating

Rajasthan Renewable Energy Corporation Ltd., Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur

15. In view of the above discussion, this appeal is hereby disposed of for statistical purposes and the matter is restored to the files of the Assessing

ITA 385/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Learned Cit(A)/Nfac.

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh (Addl.CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80Section 80I

Relief allowed in order u/s 250 but issues set-aside (i) Publicity and advertisement expenses Rs. 28,99,317/- (ii) Deduction u/s 80IA Rs. 9,73,405/- Rs. 38,72,722/- Rs. 25,29,74,565/- Less: relief allowed by Hon’ble ITAT (i) Contribution of Construction of Raj Bhawan ... Prior period expenses Rs. 2,32,977/- Rs.1,02,32,997/- Rs.24,27,41,568/ Less: Deduction u/s 80IA allowed Rs. 2,65,12,067/- (4,13,09,353-1,47,97,286=2,65,12,067/-) Total Income Rs.21

Ku Sodalamuthu and Co Private Limited, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Coimbatore

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

ITA 774/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 774/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Deputy Commissioner Of Income K U Sodalamuthu & Co V. Tax, Private Limited, Corporate Circle-1, 428, Mettupalayam Road, 63, Race Course Road, Coimbatore – 641 043 Coimbatore – 641 025. [Pan: Aaack-7236-M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. N.V. Lakshmi, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29.04.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19.06.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. N.V. Lakshmi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80I

erred in upholding the order of the assessing officer which does not even give any reason for disallowance of deduction U/s 80IA of the Act. 8 The CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs 52,41,051/- without appreciating the fact that the opening stock is merely ... gone through orders of the authorities below. It is an admitted fact that the assessee had filed return of income after claiming deduction u/s. 80IA of the Act to the extent of Rs.34,86,976/- and also filed corresponding Form no. 10CCB, which is the audit report issued

Digvijai Polytex Private Limited, Rajapalayam vs. ACIT Corp Circle, Madurai

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

ITA 343/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jun 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.343/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Digvijai Polytex Private Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of 61, Kumarasamy Raja Nagar, Income Tax, Rajapalayam 626 108. Corporate Circle, Madurai. [Pan: Aaacd 9673K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. J. Prabhakar & Shri. S. Muralidhar, Chartered Accountants. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. Arv Srinivasan, Irs, Addl. Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 18.06.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20.06.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

For Appellant: Shri. J. Prabhakar, & Shri. S. MuralidharFor Respondent: Shri. ARV Srinivasan, IRS, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 28Section 80Section 801Section 801ASection 80A(4)Section 80I

Gross Total Income was 397.37 Crores. Gross Total Income included Income from Other Sources of Rs.41.62 Crores. The AO sought to restrict the deduction u/s 80IA (Rs.492.78 Crores) to the extent of the Business Income namely 355.74 Crores while the assessee claimed 80IA to the extent of the Gross Total

Ritika Pvt Ltd, Gurgaon vs. ACIT Vcentral Circle-4, New Delhi

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

ITA 430/DEL/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Sudhir Kumarassessment Year 2013-14

For Respondent: Ms. Beenu, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 28Section 43B

Court in the case of Ultratech Cement td Vs AddI.CIT [2017: TIOL-785-HC-MUM-IT] held that an additional ground for claiming deduction u/s 80IA cannot be allowed by the Tribunal, when no claim was made before the original authority and there is nothing on record to indicate

Tatva Global Environment (Deonar ) Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 9(3), Mumbai

ITA 3983/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwalaFor Respondent: Shri H.M. Bhatt, DR
Section 115Section 115JSection 143Section 80Section 80I

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JM