← 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- 3(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are treated as partly allowed

ITA 2588/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

Section 14ASection 250(6)Section 32Section 35

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J” Bench, Mumbai Before Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (JM) I.T.A. No

DCIT-3(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are treated as partly allowed

ITA 2587/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

Section 14ASection 250(6)Section 32Section 35

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J” Bench, Mumbai Before Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (JM) I.T.A. No

Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(4), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are treated as partly allowed

ITA 2318/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

Section 14ASection 250(6)Section 32Section 35

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J” Bench, Mumbai Before Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (JM) I.T.A. No

Reliance Industries Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 3(4), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are treated as partly allowed

ITA 2317/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

Section 14ASection 250(6)Section 32Section 35

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J” Bench, Mumbai Before Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (JM) I.T.A. No

Gopal Sponge & Power Pvt. Ltd, Raipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed, in terms of our observations here in above

ITA 226/RPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am (Ita No. 226/Rpr/2022) (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Gopal Sponge & Power Pvt. Ltd., Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Village- Siltara, Near Industrial Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur, (C.G.) Growth Centre, Phase- 2, Raipur, (C.G.) Pan: Aaccg1525F (अपीलाथ" /Applicant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri B. Subramanyam, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.K. Meena, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 02-08-2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17-10- 2023

For Appellant: Shri B. Subramanyam, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Meena, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 801A(4)(iv)

assessee, 100% profit from the power division of the company consisting of Waste Heat recovery-based boiler, turbine etc. is eligible for deduction u/s 80IA (1) being eligible business u/s 80IA(4)(iv). 4. Return of income for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2017-18 was filed ... Rule 18BBB of the Act, such fact needs verification, which the Ld. AO has overlooked. Assessee’s contention that the assessee was allowed deduction u/s 80IA in the earlier AY years i.e., 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16 can be taken as a 18 plausible explanation on the principle

K.K. Enterprises, Udaipur vs. ACIT, Circle-2, Udaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 143/JODH/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur12 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.143/Jodh/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80I

charges. The disallowance so sustained is bad in law and bad on facts. 3. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in not allowing deduction u/s 80IA claimed at Rs. 66,97,408/- for which application for admitting additional ground was raised before the ld.CIT ... erred in not considering such ground of appeal raised in appeal. 4. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in restricting the deduction u/s 80IA to Zero on the pretext that there was loss from business or profession for which application for admitting additional ground was raised before the ld.CIT

ACIT, Circle- 25(1), New Delhi vs. Tata Power Delhi Distribution Ltd. (Formely Known As North Delhi Power Ltd.), New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4454/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Ms. Shashi M. Kapila, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 801A

u/s 115JB of the Act and total income of Rs. Nil under normal provisions of the Act after claiming deduction u/s 80IA of the Act. The assessee company w.e.f. 01.07.2002 had undertaken the business of distribution of electricity from the erstwhile Delhi Vidyut Board for distribution and supply of electricity ... No.4453 & 4454/Del/2017 M/s. Tata Power Delhi Distribution Ltd 24. Ground No. 5 raised by the assessee is only seeking enhancement of claim of deduction u/s 80IA of the Act on additions made to the income of the eligible unit towards commission, maintenance charges and miscellaneous income totaling

ACIT, Circle- 25(1), New Delhi vs. Tata Power Delhi Distribution Ltd. (Formely Known As North Delhi Power Ltd.), New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4453/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Ms. Shashi M. Kapila, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 801A

u/s 115JB of the Act and total income of Rs. Nil under normal provisions of the Act after claiming deduction u/s 80IA of the Act. The assessee company w.e.f. 01.07.2002 had undertaken the business of distribution of electricity from the erstwhile Delhi Vidyut Board for distribution and supply of electricity ... No.4453 & 4454/Del/2017 M/s. Tata Power Delhi Distribution Ltd 24. Ground No. 5 raised by the assessee is only seeking enhancement of claim of deduction u/s 80IA of the Act on additions made to the income of the eligible unit towards commission, maintenance charges and miscellaneous income totaling

Tata Power Delhi Distribution Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-25(1), Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4098/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Ms. Shashi M. Kapila, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 801A

u/s 115JB of the Act and total income of Rs. Nil under normal provisions of the Act after claiming deduction u/s 80IA of the Act. The assessee company w.e.f. 01.07.2002 had undertaken the business of distribution of electricity from the erstwhile Delhi Vidyut Board for distribution and supply of electricity ... No.4453 & 4454/Del/2017 M/s. Tata Power Delhi Distribution Ltd 24. Ground No. 5 raised by the assessee is only seeking enhancement of claim of deduction u/s 80IA of the Act on additions made to the income of the eligible unit towards commission, maintenance charges and miscellaneous income totaling

Tata Power Delhi Distribution Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-25(1), Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4097/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Ms. Shashi M. Kapila, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 801A

u/s 115JB of the Act and total income of Rs. Nil under normal provisions of the Act after claiming deduction u/s 80IA of the Act. The assessee company w.e.f. 01.07.2002 had undertaken the business of distribution of electricity from the erstwhile Delhi Vidyut Board for distribution and supply of electricity ... No.4453 & 4454/Del/2017 M/s. Tata Power Delhi Distribution Ltd 24. Ground No. 5 raised by the assessee is only seeking enhancement of claim of deduction u/s 80IA of the Act on additions made to the income of the eligible unit towards commission, maintenance charges and miscellaneous income totaling

DCIT, Circle, Panipat vs. Paliwal Overseas Pvt. Ltd., Panipat

In the result, Revenue’s appeal being ITA No

ITA 644/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 36

erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 7,49,39,412/- on account of denial of deduction u/s 80IA (4) completely overlooking the facts discussed by the AO in his assessment order u/s 143 (3) of the Income Tax Act. 2. Whether on the facts ... inter-alia invoking section 293C of the Act while deleting the addition of Rs. 7,49,39,412/- on account of denial of deduction u/s 80IA (4). 3. Whether on the facts and in law, the CIT (A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.72,06,527/- on account

ACIT, Circle, Panipat vs. Paliwal Overseas Pvt. Ltd., Panipat

In the result, Revenue’s appeal being ITA No

ITA 2083/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 36

erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 7,49,39,412/- on account of denial of deduction u/s 80IA (4) completely overlooking the facts discussed by the AO in his assessment order u/s 143 (3) of the Income Tax Act. 2. Whether on the facts ... inter-alia invoking section 293C of the Act while deleting the addition of Rs. 7,49,39,412/- on account of denial of deduction u/s 80IA (4). 3. Whether on the facts and in law, the CIT (A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.72,06,527/- on account

ACIT, Circle, Panipat vs. Paliwal Overseas Pvt. Ltd., Panipat

In the result, Revenue’s appeal being ITA No

ITA 2082/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Sept 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 36

erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 7,49,39,412/- on account of denial of deduction u/s 80IA (4) completely overlooking the facts discussed by the AO in his assessment order u/s 143 (3) of the Income Tax Act. 2. Whether on the facts ... inter-alia invoking section 293C of the Act while deleting the addition of Rs. 7,49,39,412/- on account of denial of deduction u/s 80IA (4). 3. Whether on the facts and in law, the CIT (A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.72,06,527/- on account

ACIT, Circle, Panipat vs. Paliwal Overseas P.Ltd, Panipat

In the result, Revenue’s appeal being ITA No

ITA 1263/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 36

erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 7,49,39,412/- on account of denial of deduction u/s 80IA (4) completely overlooking the facts discussed by the AO in his assessment order u/s 143 (3) of the Income Tax Act. 2. Whether on the facts ... inter-alia invoking section 293C of the Act while deleting the addition of Rs. 7,49,39,412/- on account of denial of deduction u/s 80IA (4). 3. Whether on the facts and in law, the CIT (A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.72,06,527/- on account

Paliwal Overseas Pvt. Ltd., Panipat vs. DCIT, Circle, Panipat

In the result, Revenue’s appeal being ITA No

ITA 5878/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Sept 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 36

erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 7,49,39,412/- on account of denial of deduction u/s 80IA (4) completely overlooking the facts discussed by the AO in his assessment order u/s 143 (3) of the Income Tax Act. 2. Whether on the facts ... inter-alia invoking section 293C of the Act while deleting the addition of Rs. 7,49,39,412/- on account of denial of deduction u/s 80IA (4). 3. Whether on the facts and in law, the CIT (A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.72,06,527/- on account

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1009/MUM/2022[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2023AY 2003-04

Bench: Aby T Vakery & Shri Amarjit Singhlarsen & Toubro Ltd Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of L&T House, N M Marg Income Tax, Circle- (5)(4), Ballard Estate, Fort Mumbai (Erstwhile Mumbai- 400001 Income Tax Officer- 2(2) Room No. 1927, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistri & MadhurFor Respondent: Shri Sushil K. Poddar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 250Section 35Section 80Section 801ASection 80I

opened by the issuing of notice u/s 148 of the Act on 08.05.2007 for the reason that assessee was not entitled for deduction u/s 80IA, The AO has also mentioned in the reason for reopening that forfeiture of advance money on account of termination of agreement relating to development ... finalized on 30.12.2008 and total income was assessed at Rs. 4280087937/-. The AO disallowed the claim of deduction u/s 80IA, forfeiture of advance money and also disallowed claim of long term capital loss on sale of R & D assets. 4. The assessee has filed appeal before

Manish Packaging Pvt. Ltd., Surat vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax - 1, Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 192/SRT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.192/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Manish Packaging Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Pcit -1, Gantiwala Compound, Near A S Surat Motors, A. K. Road, Surat - 395008 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcm6018Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri S. M. Keshkamat, Cit(Dr) 13/09/2023 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 26/09/2023

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80Section 801Section 80I

being heard, the assessee failed to furnish separate balance sheets for each of the six wind mills, which is required for availing deduction u/s 80IA of the Act as per Rule 18BBB(2) of the I.T. Rules, 1962. The Assessing Officer has allowed deduction of Rs.3,10,98,776/- u/s ... each of the six mills, thereby not fulfilling the condition laid down in Rule 188BBB of the Income Tax Rules for claiming deduction u/s 80IA of the Act. Thus, the action of the Assessing Officer and the assessment order in question is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 4(1), Raipur vs. Meserss Chhattisgarh Stateelectricity Board, Raipur

ITA 31/RPR/2020[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur25 Sept 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.31/Rpr/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-4(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board (Through Chhattisgarh State Power Holding Company Limited) Dangania Raipur Pan : Aabcc7876Q ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: S/shri Praveen Khandelwal & PraveenFor Respondent: Dr. Simran Bhullar, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80I

A.Y.2006-07 on 30.11.2006, declaring an income of Rs 3 DCIT, Circle-4(1), Raipur Vs. M/s. Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board Nil (after claiming deduction u/s. 80IA(4)(iv) of Rs.592,36,15,293/-). The return of income filed by the assessee company was processed as such u/s ... assessment order. At the same time, the assessee company claimed the enhanced income of Rs. 19.06 Crores (supra) as eligible for deduction u/s 80IA of the Act. 6. After deliberating on the aforesaid claim of the assessee company, the AO did not find favor with the same. Observing that

J.P Tobacco Product Pvt. Ltd., Damoh vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle, Sagar

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

ITA 124/JAB/2008[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur22 Sept 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gadalej.P.Tobacco Products Vs Asst.Cit, Pvt.Ltd., Patharia Phatak, Circle-Sagar (M.P.) Damoh (M.P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No.Aaacj7141G Assessee By Shri G.N.Purohit, Sr.Adv. & Shri Abhijeet Shrivastava, Adv. Revenue By Shri Rajesh Kumar Gupta, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 15/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22/09/2023

Section 80Section 801ASection 80HSection 80I

Tribunal”) on 30.09.2009 however, by way of order in M.A.No.06/Jab/2010 dated 30.09.2022, the Tribunal has recalled the one of grounds related to deduction u/s 80IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”)on the interest on bank FDRs amounting to Rs.3,24,43,286/-, in view ... Authorized Representatives of the parties on issue in dispute and perused the relevant material available on record. On the limited issue of deduction u/s 80IA of the Act in respect of interest of bank fixed deposits, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee fairly accepted that the issue in dispute

ACIT Special Range-3, New Delhi vs. Delhi Tourism & Transportation Development Corporation Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, Appeal filed by the Department in ITA No

ITA 5922/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI N. K. BILLAIYA (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

Section 43B

case, finding of the AO and submission of the appellant. During the course of assessment proceedings, appellant has made fresh claim of deduction u/s 80IA Page 26 of 52 ITA No.5167/Del/2019 & Ors. Delhi Tourism & Transportation Development Corporation Ltd. vs. ACIT on the infrastructural facilities developed by it during the year ... Form 10CCB of Chartered Accountants which is mandatorily to be obtained as per the provision of section 801A(7) for availing any deduction u/s 80IA. The AO has not accepted the claim of the appellant as appellant has not made the claim in the original return and also not filed