“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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ITA 6541/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

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

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

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

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

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

ITA 6540/DEL/2018[20101-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025

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

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

Aqua Tech Solutions Private Limited, Pune vs. PCIT (Central)-3, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3855/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Acccountant Member

For Appellant: Ms. Simran Dhawan &For Respondent: Shri. Rajesh Kumar Yadav, CIT. DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 801A(4)

response to notice u/s 148. Subsequently, the PCIT issued a show-caused notice u/s 263 stating that the assessee has incorrectly claimed deduction u/s 80IA(4) of the Act and to this extend there is error which is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The assessee made detailed submission ... reasons for reopening are completely different for which no addition is made and therefore, the assessing officer would not have denied the deduction u/s 80IA(4) of the act during the re-assessment proceedings. However, the PCIT did not accept the submission of the assessee and proceeded to set aside

Rupa Infotech and Infrastructure Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 14(1)(20, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 4750/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt. Renu Jauhri () Ι.Τ.Α. No. 4750/Mum/2025

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 801ASection 80I

record to show that the assessee had complied with basis requirement of having minimum 52 units, nor submitted any details regarding eligibility for deduction u/s 80IA(4)(iii) of the Act. Assessee in response submitted vide letter dated 12/02/2015 wherein a reference to the assessment order passed for assessment year ... made. It was submitted that eligibility of assessee to claim deduction u/s 80IA(4)(iii) of the Act was discussed in detail and necessary proof to support the claim alongwith documents were filed during the relevant assessment year 2011-12. It was submitted that there is no change on facts

ACIT, Circle - 3 3 1, Mumbai vs. Jamnagar Utilities and Power Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are allowed

ITA 5312/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

For Appellant: Mr. Nimesh Vora/For Respondent: Mr. Vivek Perampurna, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 135Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 43ASection 80G

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI RAJ

ACIT, Circle - 3 3 1, Mumbai vs. Jamnagar Utilities and Power Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are allowed

ITA 5310/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

For Respondent: Mr. Nimesh Vora/

Section 115JSection 135Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 43ASection 80G

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI RAJ

Intime Properties Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle 2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1226/HYD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1226/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15) Intime Properties Ltd Vs. Dy.Cit Hyderabad Circle 2(1) Pan:Aabci5676A Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Adv Madhur Agarwal & Ca Paresh Sondagar राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Ranjan Agrawala, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 19/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 26/11/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Intime Properties Ltd (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-52, Mumbai (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 30.05.2025 For The A.Y 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Adv Madhur Agarwal and CAFor Respondent: : Shri Ranjan Agrawala, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 80Section 80I

eligible undertaking. Therefore, respectfully following the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, we hold that the assessee is entitled for deduction u/s 80IA of the Act on account of interest received on income tax refund. Further, the contention of the Ld. DR that only proportionate interest relating

Dodla Dairy Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT Circle -8(1), Hyderabad

ITA 466/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Us:

For Appellant: Shri Aashik Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. U. Mini Chandran

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 80Section 801BSection 80J

captive power plants of the assessee 59 ITA TP 466/Hyd/2022 and 1301/Hyd/2024 Dodla Dairy Limited. company, i.e., the eligible units were entitled for deduction u/s 80IA of the Act. The Hon’ble Apex Court referring to the provisions of sub- section (8) of Section 80IA of the Act, had observed

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-19, New Delhi vs. Koya and Company Construction Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2177/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareekdcit, Vs. M/S. Koya & Company Construction Ltd. Central Circle 19, 12-2-831/38/1, 72 Migh, New Delhi. Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad – 500 028 (Telangana). (Pan :Aacck3240R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri K.C. Devdas, Ar Revenue By : Shri Shankar Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.10.2025 Date Of Order : 26.11.2025 Order Per S. Rifaur Rahman:

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shankar Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 92CSection 92D

Rs.23,72,52,106/- and therefore it is not the case of under billing and thus allowing the Appellant to claim higher deduction u/s 80IA of the Act.  Each year the profit element on the work done by MEIL is 2% only and therefore the Appellant has not earned ... only 2% of the contract value. The above arrangement was made with the conscious decision with the awareness that the assessee is claiming deduction u/s 80IA. From the information submitted before us on the turnover and profit margin earned by the assessee with the related and unrelated parties in both

Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax (OSD), Corporate Circle-1, Coimbatore vs. M/S Premier Mills Private Limited, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal of Revenue vide ITA No

ITA 514/CHNY/2025[2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2025

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.499/Chny/2025, Assessment Years: 2017-18 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.514/Chny/2025, Assessment Years: 2018-19

For Appellant: Mr.Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.ARV Sreenivasan, CIT

Section 80I

Ld.AO had, based upon recommendation of the Ld.TPO, made an downward adjustment of Rs.18,17,90,215/- to the assessee’s claim of deduction u/s 80IA of the Act. The assessee was having two units being Wind Energy Unit and a Textile unit. The main issue at hand was determination ... decision of Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT vs Reliance Industries Ltd (Supra) held that while computing deduction u/s. 80IA of the Act for power generation companies for captive consumption, the rate charged by electricity distribution companies to its consumers should be considered instead

Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax (OSD), Corporate Circle-1, Coimbatore vs. M/S Premier Mills Private Limited, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal of Revenue vide ITA No

ITA 499/CHNY/2025[2017]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2025

For Appellant: Mr.Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.ARV Sreenivasan, CIT

Section 80I

Dabur India Ltd., New Delhi vs. PCIT - 1, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2075/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Kaushal, CITDR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32Section 35Section 35(1)Section 80GSection 80I

explanation notes to the provision of Finance Act, 2009. It also filed Form 10DA and audited report as per Rule 18BBB for deduction u/s 80IA was filed. For deduction claimed u/s 35(1) only Form 3CL was filed before the AO. No computation of income or audited financial statement

Comet Power Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assessing Officer, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3321/MUM/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 139(1)Section 250Section 80Section 801ASection 801A(7)Section 80I

facts narrated therein. ITA No. 3321/Mum/2025, A.Y 2019-20 3. At the outset, we noticed that the claim of the assessee for seeking deduction u/s 80IA of the Act was denied by holding that the return of income was filed by the assessee u/s ... 80IA of the Act for the year under consideration. Therefore in view of our above discussion we direct the AO to allow the deduction u/s 80IA of the Act. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed ITA No. 3320/Mum/2025

Comet Power Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assessing Officer, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3320/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 139(1)Section 250Section 80Section 801ASection 801A(7)Section 80I

Comet Power Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assessing Officer, Aayakar Bhawan, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3319/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 139(1)Section 250Section 80Section 801ASection 801A(7)Section 80I

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Tirunelveli vs. M/S.Loyal Textile Mills Limited, Kovilpatti

In the result, both appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 193/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.192/Chny/2025, A.Y.: 2017-18 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.193/Chny/2025, A.Y.: 2018-19 V. Deputy Commissioner Of Income M/S.Loyal Textile Mills Tax, Limited, Circle-1, New No.21, Old No.4, Tirunelveli. Mill Street, Kovilpatti, Tamil Nadu-628 501. [Pan: Aaacl2632C] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By Mr.Bhupendran, Advocate. : प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By Mr.Krishna Murthy At, Jcit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 22.10.2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.10.2025

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 40Section 801ASection 80ISection 92CSection 92F

144C(3) dated 29.10.2021, assessed the income at Rs.19,88,91,134/–, making two additions—(i) Rs.4,26,45,814/– towards difference in deduction u/s 80IA, and (ii) Rs.2,89,80,000/– towards disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of tax on commission paid to non-resident agents ... Revenue has challenged both the issues: a. The deletion of transfer pricing adjustment in respect of captive power valuation for the purpose of deduction u/s 80IA. Page 2 of 6 ITA Nos.192 & 193 /Chny/2025 (AY-2017-18 & 2018-19) M/s.Loyal Textile Mills Limited. b. The deletion of disallowance u/s

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Tirunelveli vs. M/S.Loyal Textile Mills Limited, Kovilpatti

In the result, both appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 192/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 40Section 801ASection 80ISection 92CSection 92F

Volark Leasing Ifsc Pvt. Ltd, Gujarat vs. ACIT/DCIT, Circle, Gandhinagar, Gujarat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 357/AHD/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Oct 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Smt. Annapurna Gupta

For Appellant: Shri Pancham Sethi, ARFor Respondent: Date of Hearing

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 234BSection 250Section 80Section 80JSection 80L

filed but the same was made available to the A.O. before passing of final assessment order, the assessee is entitled to claim the deduction u/s 80IA of the Act, in view of the above ratio, we do not find any infirmity in granting 80IA deduction by the CIT(A), accordingly

Deepa Jhunjhunwala, Shillong vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -1, Shillong

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 127/GTY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati28 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A) and thereafter aggrieved the assessee has approached the ITAT with the following grounds:

Section 139(4)Section 139(9)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 80Section 80ASection 80I

extract is relevant: “5. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the records available on record. We notice that the assessee claimed deduction u/s 80IA of the Act but the same was denied by the CPC in the order passed u/s 143(1)(a) of the Act. We observe ... assessee was processed by the CPC u/s. 143(1) of the Act and the assessee was also claiming and was allowed deduction u/s. 80IA in the earlier assessment years then, there was no justification on the part of the CPC to deny the deduction for small delay in filing

Deepa Jhunjhunwala, Shillong vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Shillong

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 126/GTY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati28 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A) and thereafter aggrieved the assessee has approached the ITAT with the following grounds:

Section 139(4)Section 139(9)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 80Section 80ASection 80I