← 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

Shree Cement Limited, Beawar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Ajmer

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 152/JPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT
Section 115JSection 250Section 32(1)(ii)Section 80Section 80I

facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT (Appeals) was not justified and erred in rejecting the claim of deduction u/s 80IA and 80IC while computing book profit u/s 115JB of the Act merely on the contention that such claim has not been made vide the return ... justified in allowing the appeal of the assessee by deleting the disallowance of Rs. 2,89,07,63,321/- on account of deduction u/s 80IA in respect of captive power plant. Shree Cement Limited, Beawar. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (A) NFAC

DCIT- Central Circle 5(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Itd Cementation India Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 642/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry () Assessment Year: 2016-17 The Dcit, Central Circle- M/S Itd Cementation India 5(1), Ltd., Vs. Room No. 1928, 19Th Floor, National Plastic Building, A- Air India Building, Nariman Subhash Road, Paranjape B Point, Scheme, Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400057. Pan No. Aaact 1426 A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Mr. Ram Prakash Rastogi
Section 115JSection 14ASection 37

assessee is The Ld. Counsel further submitted that the assessee is The Ld. Counsel further submitted that the assessee is otherwise eligible for deduction u/s 80IA of the Act and deduction otherwise eligible for deduction u/s 80IA of the Act and deduction otherwise eligible for deduction u/s 80IA

Val Organics Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT 4(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1603/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhval Organics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Plot No. 95, Chadha Income Tax, Circle 4(3)(1) Building, Wadala, Room No. 649, 6 Th Floor, Mumbai – 400031 Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacv4456E Appellant .. Respondent [ Appellant By : Shekhar Gupta Respondent By : Ms. Zeenia Handa Date Of Hearing 18.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 24.07.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Filed By The Assesse Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-4, Mumbai, Dated 30.03.2023 For A.Y. 2018- 19. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. The Learned Principal Cit Has Erred In Law & On The Facts Of The Case In Reopening The Assessment U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act. 2. The Learned Principal Cit Has Erred In Law & On The Facts Of The Case In Holding That The Deduction U/S. 80G To The Extent Of Rs.18,83,000/- Was Not Allowable Since The Amount Was Spent On Csr Activities. 3. The Assessee Craves Leave To Add, Alter Or Amend The Above Grounds Of Appeal.”

For Appellant: Shekhar GuptaFor Respondent: Ms. Zeenia Handa
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 801A(4)(iv)Section 80GSection 80I

interest of the revenue because of the following reasons: “i. On perusal of case record, it is seen that assessee has claimed deduction u/s 80IA of the Act to the tune of Rs. 85,46,370/- in respect of windmill at Umergaon, Gujarat. One of the mandatory conditions for claiming ... taken, considering the above referred issues in para 2(1) to 2(iv) of this order. In response, with regard to deduction u/s 80IA of Rs.85,46,370/- the assessee submitted that it had put up the P a g e | 3 Val Organics Pvt.Ltd. Vs. DCIT

Add. CIT Spl Range--3, New Delhi vs. Dlf Ltd, New Delhi

ITA 5919/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. N.K.Billaiya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No.5978/Del/2017, A.Y. 2014-15 Ita No.2238/Del/2019, A.Y. 2015-16 Ita No.5919/Del/2019, A.Y. 2016-17

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 801A

assessing officer made the disallowance on the ground that the windmill units ITA 5978 & Ors. 18 located in Gujarat and Karnataka are claiming deduction u/s 80IA and assessee has failed to allocate overhead expenses to these units. Eventually, the assessing officer allocated the establishment, finance and general administration expenses ... submissions and gone through the orders passed by sub-ordinate authorities. The issue before us is allocation of expenses to eligible units claiming deduction u/s 80IA and consequential disallowance in the hands of the assessee company. In short, the assessing officer has observed that common expenses pertaining to units claiming

Add. CIT Spl Range--3, New Delhi vs. Dlf Ltd, New Delhi

ITA 2238/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. N.K.Billaiya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No.5978/Del/2017, A.Y. 2014-15 Ita No.2238/Del/2019, A.Y. 2015-16 Ita No.5919/Del/2019, A.Y. 2016-17

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 801A

assessing officer made the disallowance on the ground that the windmill units ITA 5978 & Ors. 18 located in Gujarat and Karnataka are claiming deduction u/s 80IA and assessee has failed to allocate overhead expenses to these units. Eventually, the assessing officer allocated the establishment, finance and general administration expenses ... submissions and gone through the orders passed by sub-ordinate authorities. The issue before us is allocation of expenses to eligible units claiming deduction u/s 80IA and consequential disallowance in the hands of the assessee company. In short, the assessing officer has observed that common expenses pertaining to units claiming

Addl. CIT, Special Range- 03, New Delhi vs. Dlf Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 5978/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. N.K.Billaiya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No.5978/Del/2017, A.Y. 2014-15 Ita No.2238/Del/2019, A.Y. 2015-16 Ita No.5919/Del/2019, A.Y. 2016-17

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 801A

assessing officer made the disallowance on the ground that the windmill units ITA 5978 & Ors. 18 located in Gujarat and Karnataka are claiming deduction u/s 80IA and assessee has failed to allocate overhead expenses to these units. Eventually, the assessing officer allocated the establishment, finance and general administration expenses ... submissions and gone through the orders passed by sub-ordinate authorities. The issue before us is allocation of expenses to eligible units claiming deduction u/s 80IA and consequential disallowance in the hands of the assessee company. In short, the assessing officer has observed that common expenses pertaining to units claiming

M/S. Bharat Aluminium Company Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2741/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Kanchan Kaushal, FCAFor Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 80I

5118/Del/2015, following grounds have been raised by the assessee: “1. DISALLOWANCE OF OTHER INCOME FOR THE COMPUTATION OF PROFIT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IA OF THE ACT Rs.2,44,94,806 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) has erred ... section 80IA of the Act regarding consideration of "Other Income" for the Bharat Aluminium Company Ltd. purpose of Computation of Profit eligible for deduction u/s 80IA of the Act and has wrongly disallowed the same which should be considered for the purpose of Computation of Profit.. The action

M/S. Bharat Aluminium Company Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3568/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Kanchan Kaushal, FCAFor Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 80I

5118/Del/2015, following grounds have been raised by the assessee: “1. DISALLOWANCE OF OTHER INCOME FOR THE COMPUTATION OF PROFIT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IA OF THE ACT Rs.2,44,94,806 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) has erred ... section 80IA of the Act regarding consideration of "Other Income" for the Bharat Aluminium Company Ltd. purpose of Computation of Profit eligible for deduction u/s 80IA of the Act and has wrongly disallowed the same which should be considered for the purpose of Computation of Profit.. The action

M/S. Bharat Aluminium Company Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 5118/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jul 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Kanchan Kaushal, FCAFor Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 80I

5118/Del/2015, following grounds have been raised by the assessee: “1. DISALLOWANCE OF OTHER INCOME FOR THE COMPUTATION OF PROFIT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IA OF THE ACT Rs.2,44,94,806 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) has erred ... section 80IA of the Act regarding consideration of "Other Income" for the Bharat Aluminium Company Ltd. purpose of Computation of Profit eligible for deduction u/s 80IA of the Act and has wrongly disallowed the same which should be considered for the purpose of Computation of Profit.. The action

City Lifeline Travels Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Special Range- 2, New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 7107/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Satyen Sethi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. DR
Section 145(3)Section 80I

Assessing Officer neither expressed her appreciation nor dissatisfaction. The ld. counsel for the assessee further stated that it is eligible for deduction u/s 80IA of the Act and, therefore, any disallowance of expenses would not make in difference in itself, as the enhanced profit would become eligible for deduction u/s

DCIT CC 3(4) Cen RG 3, Mumbai vs. Patel Engineering Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2486/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jul 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon’Ble

Section 14ASection 154Section 199(2)Section 80I

into by the assessee with various government authorities is for contractual work and not to develop/operate and maintain any infrastructure facilities to which deduction u/s. 80IA(4)(i) is intended to and allowing the deduction u/s 80IA(4) of the IT Act, 1961 and failed to appreciate that the section ... circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) was justified in holding that the assessee is eligible for enhanced claim of deduction u/s 80IA(4), in respect of M/s Ambica Steel and ShivamGiri Steel Ltd. to the extent of unsubstantiated purchases without appreciating the fact that the additions

DCIT CC 3(4) Cen RG 3, Mumbai vs. Patel Engineering Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2485/MUM/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jul 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon’Ble

Section 14ASection 154Section 199(2)Section 80I

into by the assessee with various government authorities is for contractual work and not to develop/operate and maintain any infrastructure facilities to which deduction u/s. 80IA(4)(i) is intended to and allowing the deduction u/s 80IA(4) of the IT Act, 1961 and failed to appreciate that the section ... circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) was justified in holding that the assessee is eligible for enhanced claim of deduction u/s 80IA(4), in respect of M/s Ambica Steel and ShivamGiri Steel Ltd. to the extent of unsubstantiated purchases without appreciating the fact that the additions

The ACIT Cir 6(3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Grasim Industries Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3854/MUM/2006[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jul 2023AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistri a/wFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 43B

that miscellaneous receipts of Rs.5,71,169/- (Rs.95,09,733/- less Rs.89,38,564/-) is not income derived from undertaking eligible for deduction u/s. 80IA. 9.2. The CIT(A) ought to have held that miscellaneous receipt of Rs.5,71,169/- is derived from business of undertaking eligible for deduction u/s ... 4083/Mum/2003 dated 22.10.2014 held as under: - ―54. The issue in ground No. 18 pertains to the apportionment of head Office expenses while computing deduction u/s 80IA of the Act. Grasim Industries Ltd. ITA no.3517/Mum./2006 ITA no.3854/Mum./2006 55. This issue has been dealt with

M/S. Grasim Industries Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir - 6(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3517/MUM/2006[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jul 2023AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistri a/wFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 43B

that miscellaneous receipts of Rs.5,71,169/- (Rs.95,09,733/- less Rs.89,38,564/-) is not income derived from undertaking eligible for deduction u/s. 80IA. 9.2. The CIT(A) ought to have held that miscellaneous receipt of Rs.5,71,169/- is derived from business of undertaking eligible for deduction u/s ... 4083/Mum/2003 dated 22.10.2014 held as under: - ―54. The issue in ground No. 18 pertains to the apportionment of head Office expenses while computing deduction u/s 80IA of the Act. Grasim Industries Ltd. ITA no.3517/Mum./2006 ITA no.3854/Mum./2006 55. This issue has been dealt with

Dy. Comm of Income Tax-Central Circle 6(3), Mumbai vs. Beil Infrastructure, Gujarat

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

ITA 1950/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Om Prakash Kantvk-Vk-La- 586@Eaqcbz@2017 ¼Fu-Oa- 2012&13½ Beil Infrastructure Limited (Earlier Known As Bharuch Enviro Infrastructure Limited) Plot No.9701-16, Gidc Estate, Ankleshwar Gujarat-393 002 ..... Vihykfkhz/Appellant Pan No. Aaacb8075F Cuke Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cc-6(3) Room No. 1903, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point ..... Izfroknh/Respondent Mumbai-400 021 Vk-Vk-La- 400@Eaqcbz@2017 ¼Fu-Oa- 2012&13½ Vk-Vk-La- 1950@Eaqcbz@2022 ¼Fu-Oa- 2015&16½ Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cc-6(3) Room No. 1903, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point ..... Vihykfkhz/Appellant Mumbai-400 021 Cuke Vs. Beil Infrastructure Limited (Earlier Known As Bharuch Enviro Infrastructure Limited) Plot No.117/18, Gidc Estate, Ankleshwar Gujarat-393 002 ..... Izfroknh/Respondent Pan No. Aaacb8075F

For Appellant: Shri Kirit Kamdar &For Respondent: Shri Salil Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 234CSection 80Section 801A

No.400/MUM/2017 (A.Y.2012-13) "1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing deduction u/s 80IA(4) to the assessee for incinerator Project I & lI, ignoring the fact that both of these projects are not new enterprises and only expansion ... total having area of 1,36,402 sq. mts. was allotted to the assessee (hereinafter referred to as ‘Landfill-II’). The assessee claimed deduction u/s 80IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) in respect of the separate Landfills, that is Landfill-I and Landfill

Beil Infrastructure Limited ('Beil')(Earlier Known As Bharuch Enviro Infrastructure Ltd), Gujrat vs. DCIT Cen Cir 6(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 586/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Om Prakash Kantvk-Vk-La- 586@Eaqcbz@2017 ¼Fu-Oa- 2012&13½ Beil Infrastructure Limited (Earlier Known As Bharuch Enviro Infrastructure Limited) Plot No.9701-16, Gidc Estate, Ankleshwar Gujarat-393 002 ..... Vihykfkhz/Appellant Pan No. Aaacb8075F Cuke Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cc-6(3) Room No. 1903, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point ..... Izfroknh/Respondent Mumbai-400 021 Vk-Vk-La- 400@Eaqcbz@2017 ¼Fu-Oa- 2012&13½ Vk-Vk-La- 1950@Eaqcbz@2022 ¼Fu-Oa- 2015&16½ Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cc-6(3) Room No. 1903, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point ..... Vihykfkhz/Appellant Mumbai-400 021 Cuke Vs. Beil Infrastructure Limited (Earlier Known As Bharuch Enviro Infrastructure Limited) Plot No.117/18, Gidc Estate, Ankleshwar Gujarat-393 002 ..... Izfroknh/Respondent Pan No. Aaacb8075F

For Appellant: Shri Kirit Kamdar &For Respondent: Shri Salil Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 234CSection 80Section 801A

No.400/MUM/2017 (A.Y.2012-13) "1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing deduction u/s 80IA(4) to the assessee for incinerator Project I & lI, ignoring the fact that both of these projects are not new enterprises and only expansion ... total having area of 1,36,402 sq. mts. was allotted to the assessee (hereinafter referred to as ‘Landfill-II’). The assessee claimed deduction u/s 80IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) in respect of the separate Landfills, that is Landfill-I and Landfill

DCIT CC 6(3), Mumbai vs. M/S Beil Infrastructure Ltd. ( Earlier Known As Bharuch Enviro Infrastructure Ltd, Anlkleshwar

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

ITA 400/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Om Prakash Kantvk-Vk-La- 586@Eaqcbz@2017 ¼Fu-Oa- 2012&13½ Beil Infrastructure Limited (Earlier Known As Bharuch Enviro Infrastructure Limited) Plot No.9701-16, Gidc Estate, Ankleshwar Gujarat-393 002 ..... Vihykfkhz/Appellant Pan No. Aaacb8075F Cuke Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cc-6(3) Room No. 1903, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point ..... Izfroknh/Respondent Mumbai-400 021 Vk-Vk-La- 400@Eaqcbz@2017 ¼Fu-Oa- 2012&13½ Vk-Vk-La- 1950@Eaqcbz@2022 ¼Fu-Oa- 2015&16½ Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cc-6(3) Room No. 1903, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point ..... Vihykfkhz/Appellant Mumbai-400 021 Cuke Vs. Beil Infrastructure Limited (Earlier Known As Bharuch Enviro Infrastructure Limited) Plot No.117/18, Gidc Estate, Ankleshwar Gujarat-393 002 ..... Izfroknh/Respondent Pan No. Aaacb8075F

For Appellant: Shri Kirit Kamdar &For Respondent: Shri Salil Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 234CSection 80Section 801A

No.400/MUM/2017 (A.Y.2012-13) "1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing deduction u/s 80IA(4) to the assessee for incinerator Project I & lI, ignoring the fact that both of these projects are not new enterprises and only expansion ... total having area of 1,36,402 sq. mts. was allotted to the assessee (hereinafter referred to as ‘Landfill-II’). The assessee claimed deduction u/s 80IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) in respect of the separate Landfills, that is Landfill-I and Landfill

M/S Rajasthan State Road Development & Construction Corporation Ltd., Setu Bhawan, Jhalana Doongri, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 150/JPR/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jun 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehara (Addl. CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 80Section 801ASection 801A(4)Section 80I

Later on the case was reopened on the ground that assessee had considered only direct operation and maintenance expenses for working out deduction u/s. 80IA without charging proportionate head office expenses e.g. payment and provision for 3 M/s Rajasthan State Road Development & Construction Corporation Ltd., Jaipur vs. DCIT employees ... administrative expenses etc. Accordingly, the reopened assessment was completed by withdrawing the deduction u/s. 80IA by an amount of Rs. 1,38,60,671/-. 4. As the assessee is aggrieved with the above order of the ld. AO passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act, has preferred

Essel Mining & Industries Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - Central Circle 1(4), Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1018/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2023AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Yogesh TharFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 32ASection 801ASection 80I

further appeal. 3. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing deduction u/s. 80IA of the Act, of Rs. 75,52,11,139/- in respect of rail system. 4. On the facts and the circumstances of the case ... common expenses. 8. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing deduction u/s. 80IA of the Act of Rs. 48,79,600/- disallowed on account of common expenses relying on the decision

Kpr Agrochem Limited, Balabhadrapuram vs. DCIT Circle-1, Kakinada

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue in I

ITA 223/VIZ/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam15 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.80/Viz/2021 & 81/Viz/2021 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2016-17 & 2017-18) Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S K.P.R.Agrochem Ltd Circle-1 D.No.8-256, Tata Nagar Kakinada Balabhadrapuram East Godavari [Pan : Aadck0257B] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.221/Viz/2022 To 223/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16) M/S K.P.R.Agrochem Ltd Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of D.No.8-256, Tata Nagar Income Tax Balabhadrapuram Circle-1 East Godavari Kakinada [Pan : Aadck0257B] अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar Shri A.Chakradhar, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri On Hari Prasada Rao, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 20.03.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 15.06.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy:

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri ON Hari Prasada Rao, DR
Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 80I

Ld.CIT(A). Hence, the ground raised by the revenue is dismissed. 8. As far as Ground No. 2 is concerned, the assessee claimed deduction u/s 80IA(8) of the Act. The case of the assessee is that the assessee company is having a captive power plant, therefore, the assessee claimed ... deduction u/s 80IA(8) in respect of power derived from the power plant. For this purpose, the assessee adopted a price of Rs.9.30 per unit of power consumed by its manufacturing units. The AO is of the view that the deduction can be granted only at the average price which