← 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

Anamika Conductors Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. Acitdcit, Jaipur

7. In view of the above reasons and findings, this appeal deserves to be allowed

ITA 471/JPR/2024[A.Y. 2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Jun 2024

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

For Appellant: Shri G.M. Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 270ASection 32Section 80Section 80I

upheld the observation by the AO that the assessee had claimed depreciation of Rs.3,23,689/- twice i.e. once while computing deduction u/s 80IA of the Act and then while calculating total taxable income. Holding that the assessee was not entitled to claim depreciation on same set of assets twice

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Nariman Point, Mumbai vs. Beil Infrastructure Limited, Gujarat

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

ITA 2732/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang, Hon’Ble& Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year 2017-18 Assessment Year 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri S.Srinivasu, CIT-DR &For Respondent: Shri Kirit Kamdar &
Section 80I

Assessment Year 2018-19 activities were executed through separate undertakings, viz., Land Fill and Incinerators. They are considered as “infrastructure facilities’ eligible for deduction u/s 80IA(4) of the Act. Each of the Land fill and Incinerator is considered as separate undertaking for the purpose of claiming deduction u/s 80IA ... During the year relevant to assessment year 2017-18, the assessee has claimed deduction u/s 80IA(4) of the Act in respect of undertaking titled as “Land fill-II”, “Incinerator-II” and “Landfill-Dahej”. In the year relevant to AY 2018-19, the assessee claimed deduction u/s 80IA

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 6(3), Mumbai vs. Beil Infrastructure Limited, Gujarat

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

ITA 2729/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang, Hon’Ble& Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year 2017-18 Assessment Year 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri S.Srinivasu, CIT-DR &For Respondent: Shri Kirit Kamdar &
Section 80I

Assessment Year 2018-19 activities were executed through separate undertakings, viz., Land Fill and Incinerators. They are considered as “infrastructure facilities’ eligible for deduction u/s 80IA(4) of the Act. Each of the Land fill and Incinerator is considered as separate undertaking for the purpose of claiming deduction u/s 80IA ... During the year relevant to assessment year 2017-18, the assessee has claimed deduction u/s 80IA(4) of the Act in respect of undertaking titled as “Land fill-II”, “Incinerator-II” and “Landfill-Dahej”. In the year relevant to AY 2018-19, the assessee claimed deduction u/s 80IA

Kds Wind Farms Private Limited, Pollachi vs. ITO, Corporate Ward-2, Coimbatore

The appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1249/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1261/Chny/2017 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Dcit M/S. Kds Wind Farms Private Limited बनाम/ Corporate Circle-1 75/1, Dr. Ansari Street, Vs. Coimbatore. Pollachi-642 001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Aaeck-7320-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1247/Chny/2023 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1248/Chny/2023 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4.आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1249/Chny/2023 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S. Kds Wind Farms Private Ltd. Dcit / Ito बनाम/ 75/1, Dr. Ansari Street, Corporate Circle-1, Corp. Ward-2 Vs. Pollachi-642 001. Coimbatore. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Aaeck-7320-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri T. Banusekar (Advocate)-Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Revenue By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan (Addl.Cit)-Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16-05-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-06-2024

For Appellant: Shri T. Banusekar (Advocate)-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan (Addl.CIT)-Ld. Sr. DR
Section 80I

vide order dated 29-11-2023. In the order, Tribunal had restored the view of Ld. AO qua assessee’s claim of deduction u/s 80IA and allowed the appeal of the revenue. The assessee submitted that there were factual errors. Concurring with the same, the bench recalled the order ... fresh hearing before us. The only issue that is to be decided in the revenue’s appeal is assessee’s claim of deduction u/s 80IA. The relevant grounds read as under: - 1. The order of the ld. CIT(A), Coimbatore is against the facts and circumstances of the case

M/S Kds Wind Farms Private Limited, Pollachi vs. ITO, Corporate Ward-2, Coimbatore

The appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1248/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1261/Chny/2017 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Dcit M/S. Kds Wind Farms Private Limited बनाम/ Corporate Circle-1 75/1, Dr. Ansari Street, Vs. Coimbatore. Pollachi-642 001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Aaeck-7320-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1247/Chny/2023 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1248/Chny/2023 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4.आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1249/Chny/2023 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S. Kds Wind Farms Private Ltd. Dcit / Ito बनाम/ 75/1, Dr. Ansari Street, Corporate Circle-1, Corp. Ward-2 Vs. Pollachi-642 001. Coimbatore. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Aaeck-7320-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri T. Banusekar (Advocate)-Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Revenue By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan (Addl.Cit)-Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16-05-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-06-2024

For Appellant: Shri T. Banusekar (Advocate)-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan (Addl.CIT)-Ld. Sr. DR
Section 80I

vide order dated 29-11-2023. In the order, Tribunal had restored the view of Ld. AO qua assessee’s claim of deduction u/s 80IA and allowed the appeal of the revenue. The assessee submitted that there were factual errors. Concurring with the same, the bench recalled the order ... fresh hearing before us. The only issue that is to be decided in the revenue’s appeal is assessee’s claim of deduction u/s 80IA. The relevant grounds read as under: - 1. The order of the ld. CIT(A), Coimbatore is against the facts and circumstances of the case

M/S Kds Wind Farms Private Limited, Pollachi vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-I, Coimbatore

The appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1247/CHNY/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1261/Chny/2017 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Dcit M/S. Kds Wind Farms Private Limited बनाम/ Corporate Circle-1 75/1, Dr. Ansari Street, Vs. Coimbatore. Pollachi-642 001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Aaeck-7320-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1247/Chny/2023 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1248/Chny/2023 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4.आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1249/Chny/2023 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S. Kds Wind Farms Private Ltd. Dcit / Ito बनाम/ 75/1, Dr. Ansari Street, Corporate Circle-1, Corp. Ward-2 Vs. Pollachi-642 001. Coimbatore. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Aaeck-7320-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri T. Banusekar (Advocate)-Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Revenue By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan (Addl.Cit)-Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16-05-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-06-2024

For Appellant: Shri T. Banusekar (Advocate)-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan (Addl.CIT)-Ld. Sr. DR
Section 80I

vide order dated 29-11-2023. In the order, Tribunal had restored the view of Ld. AO qua assessee’s claim of deduction u/s 80IA and allowed the appeal of the revenue. The assessee submitted that there were factual errors. Concurring with the same, the bench recalled the order ... fresh hearing before us. The only issue that is to be decided in the revenue’s appeal is assessee’s claim of deduction u/s 80IA. The relevant grounds read as under: - 1. The order of the ld. CIT(A), Coimbatore is against the facts and circumstances of the case

DCIT, Coimbatore vs. Kds Wind Farms Pvt Ltd., Pollachi

The appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1261/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1261/Chny/2017 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Dcit M/S. Kds Wind Farms Private Limited बनाम/ Corporate Circle-1 75/1, Dr. Ansari Street, Vs. Coimbatore. Pollachi-642 001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Aaeck-7320-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1247/Chny/2023 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1248/Chny/2023 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4.आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1249/Chny/2023 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S. Kds Wind Farms Private Ltd. Dcit / Ito बनाम/ 75/1, Dr. Ansari Street, Corporate Circle-1, Corp. Ward-2 Vs. Pollachi-642 001. Coimbatore. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Aaeck-7320-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri T. Banusekar (Advocate)-Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Revenue By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan (Addl.Cit)-Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16-05-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-06-2024

For Appellant: Shri T. Banusekar (Advocate)-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan (Addl.CIT)-Ld. Sr. DR
Section 80I

vide order dated 29-11-2023. In the order, Tribunal had restored the view of Ld. AO qua assessee’s claim of deduction u/s 80IA and allowed the appeal of the revenue. The assessee submitted that there were factual errors. Concurring with the same, the bench recalled the order ... fresh hearing before us. The only issue that is to be decided in the revenue’s appeal is assessee’s claim of deduction u/s 80IA. The relevant grounds read as under: - 1. The order of the ld. CIT(A), Coimbatore is against the facts and circumstances of the case

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai vs. Pool Thevar Marimuthu, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2014-15 is dismissed

ITA 1421/CHNY/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1421/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Pool Thevar Marimuthu, Deputy Commissioner Of V. Old No. 54, New No. 23, Income-Tax, Defence Colony, Corporate Circle -1(1), Ekkattuthangal, Chennai. Chennai – 600 032. [Pan: Aanpm-5361-M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. V. Nandakumar, Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Y. Sridhar, Fca सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09.05.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 29.05.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. V. Nandakumar, CITFor Respondent: Shri. Y. Sridhar, FCA
Section 801CSection 80I

under taking is not formed by splitting up or reconstruction of business already in existence, it is entitled to the deduction u/s 80IA for subsequent years. Since the assesee had been granted claim of deduction right from the AY 2004-05 under section 80 IA, consequently it cannot be denied

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Nagpur vs. Smt. Anju Ajay Saraf, Nagpur

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for the A

ITA 32/NAG/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Sudesh BanthiaFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya
Section 139Section 139(5)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 5Section 80I

facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(Appeals)-3 has erred in not appreciating the fact that the deduction u/s. 80IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is not allowable to the assessee on wind mill activity. 3. Any other ground which may be taken ... no.30/Nag./2018 C.O. no.3/Nag./2018 ITA no.32/Nag./2020 C.O. no.7/Nag./2020 The assessee had put up a wind mill unit qualifying for deduction u/s 80IA of Income-Tax Act, 1961. The said unit commenced production in AY 2006-07. As per option provided by Section 80IA(2) of Income

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Nagpur vs. Smt. Anju Ajay Saraf, Nagpur

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for the A

ITA 30/NAG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Sudesh BanthiaFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya
Section 139Section 139(5)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 5Section 80I

facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(Appeals)-3 has erred in not appreciating the fact that the deduction u/s. 80IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is not allowable to the assessee on wind mill activity. 3. Any other ground which may be taken ... no.30/Nag./2018 C.O. no.3/Nag./2018 ITA no.32/Nag./2020 C.O. no.7/Nag./2020 The assessee had put up a wind mill unit qualifying for deduction u/s 80IA of Income-Tax Act, 1961. The said unit commenced production in AY 2006-07. As per option provided by Section 80IA(2) of Income

ACIT, Cir 8(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Star Track Terminals Pvt. Ltd., Greater Noida

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

ITA 4394/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeassessment Year :2016-17 Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Manish KantFor Respondent: Ms. Sujatha Iyangar, Sr.AR
Section 263Section 80Section 80I

with the shareholders, viz., M/s. APM Terminals Pvt. Ltd holding 51% shares and Container Corporation of India holding 49% shares. The assessee claimed deduction u/s. 80IA(4) of the Act in both the years on the ground that it is an industrial undertaking engaged in infrastructure development. Before the Assessing ... decision of ITAT by filing appeal before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer rejected claim of the assessee for deduction u/s. 80IA(4) of the Act. 3. In the appellate proceedings, the ld.CIT(A) followed the decision rendered by ITAT and accordingly allowed the claim

ACIT, Cir 8(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Star Track Terminals Pvt. Ltd., Greater Noida

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

ITA 4393/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeassessment Year :2016-17 Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Manish KantFor Respondent: Ms. Sujatha Iyangar, Sr.AR
Section 263Section 80Section 80I

with the shareholders, viz., M/s. APM Terminals Pvt. Ltd holding 51% shares and Container Corporation of India holding 49% shares. The assessee claimed deduction u/s. 80IA(4) of the Act in both the years on the ground that it is an industrial undertaking engaged in infrastructure development. Before the Assessing ... decision of ITAT by filing appeal before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer rejected claim of the assessee for deduction u/s. 80IA(4) of the Act. 3. In the appellate proceedings, the ld.CIT(A) followed the decision rendered by ITAT and accordingly allowed the claim

Vodafone India Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-8(3)(2), Mumbai

ITA 2834/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2024AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri P.J. PardiwalaFor Respondent: Shri T. Sankar
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 234DSection 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37Section 40

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "I" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Vodafone India Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 8(3)(2), Mumbai

ITA 884/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2024AY 2011-12
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 234DSection 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37Section 40

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "I" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER

DCIT 8(3)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Vodafone Idea Limited (Earlier Known As Vodafone India Limited Which Now Stands Merged With Idea Cellular Limited (Icl) and Consequently Known As Vodafone Idea Limited), Mumbai

ITA 1919/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2024AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri P.J. PardiwalaFor Respondent: Shri T. Sankar
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 234DSection 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37Section 40

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "I" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-8, Pune vs. Advik Hi-Tech Private Limited, Pune

ITA 1203/PUN/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Sharad A Shah &For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 143Section 43(1)

after accounting for the earlier years depreciation and losses. The appellant has contended that once the assessee chooses initial year for claim of deduction u/s 80IA, notionally brought forward losses and set-off of earlier year’s losses cannot be set off against current years eligible unit’s profits

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

ITA 1157/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Sharad A Shah &For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 143Section 43(1)

after accounting for the earlier years depreciation and losses. The appellant has contended that once the assessee chooses initial year for claim of deduction u/s 80IA, notionally brought forward losses and set-off of earlier year’s losses cannot be set off against current years eligible unit’s profits

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

ITA 1156/PUN/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Sharad A Shah &For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 143Section 43(1)

after accounting for the earlier years depreciation and losses. The appellant has contended that once the assessee chooses initial year for claim of deduction u/s 80IA, notionally brought forward losses and set-off of earlier year’s losses cannot be set off against current years eligible unit’s profits

Arathi Vinay Patil, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(3)(4), Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 604/BANG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 May 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, D.R
Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 44ASection 80Section 801ASection 80I

filed at all. 2.10. With respect to Form 10CCB is not filed within due date, the assessee submitted that in order to claim deduction u/s 80IA of the Act, the assessee has to get his books of accounts audited and furnish the audit report in prescribed form. In this regard ... Hence, the revised due date is applicable to assessee for the reason that assessee was required to file audit report for claiming deduction u/s 80IA of the Act in Form 10CCB. As such, us 80IA(7) states Form No.10CCB is required to be filed after audit by accountant as defined

Asahi Songwon Colors Limited, Ahmedabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Aaykar Bhavan, Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 710/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra R. Kambleassessment Year : 2017-18 Asahi Songwon Colors Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. 20 Block B, Times Corporate Income Tax, Park, Opp Copper Stone, Central Circle 2 (3), Thaltej, Shilaj Road, Aaykar Bhavan, Ahmedabad -380059 Ahmedabad Pan : Aaaca 9713 D अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sunil Talati, Ar Revenue By : Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13.02.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 10.05.2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Annapurna Guptapresent Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-12, Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)" For Short] Dated 18.08.2023 Passed Under Section 250(6) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act" For Short], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. Ground Nos. 1 & 2, It Was Stated, Relate To The Same Issue Of Disallowance Made Of Expenses Incurred In Relation To Earning Exempt Income, In Terms Of Provisions Of Section 14A Of The Act. The Disallowance So Made By The Assessing Officer & Confirmed By The Ld. Cit(A) Amounts To Rs.23,00,575/-. Ground Nos. 1 & 2 Raised By The Assessee Read As Under:- Asahi Songwon Colors Ltd Vs. Dcit Ay : 2017-18 2

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Talati, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr DR
Section 10(34)Section 10(38)Section 14Section 14ASection 250(6)

Office expenses are contained at paragraph No.3.1 of the Assessing Officer’s as under:- “3.1 In computation of income, the assessee has claimed deduction u/s. 80IA of Rs. 56,65,811/-. The expenses like director’s remuneration, bank charges, auditor’s remuneration and audit fee are incurred for the organization ... assessee in AY 2008-09, we hold that the disallowance made by allocating commission expenses to the eligible unit of the assessee claiming deduction u/s 80IA of the Act amounting to Rs.1,07,897/- is not sustainable. The disallowance so made is, therefore, directed to be deleted. Ground of appeal