← 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

Shreenathji Infrastructure P.Ltd., Pipariya vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Itarsi

ITA 314/IND/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 147Section 80Section 80I

facts and in the circumstances of the appellant’s case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) upholding the disallowance of deduction u/s 80IA(4) of Rs. 66,67,785/- made by the A.O.” ITA No. 311/Ind/2018 – AY 2010-11: “(1) That on the facts and in the circumstances ... facts and in the circumstances of the appellant’s case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) upholding the disallowance of deduction u/s 80IA(4) of Rs. 85,87,725/- made by the A.O.” ITA No. 312/Ind/2018 – AY 2012-13: “(1) That on the facts and in the circumstances

Shreenathji Infrastructure P.Ltd., Pipariya vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Itarsi

ITA 313/IND/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Feb 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 147Section 80Section 80I

facts and in the circumstances of the appellant’s case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) upholding the disallowance of deduction u/s 80IA(4) of Rs. 66,67,785/- made by the A.O.” ITA No. 311/Ind/2018 – AY 2010-11: “(1) That on the facts and in the circumstances ... facts and in the circumstances of the appellant’s case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) upholding the disallowance of deduction u/s 80IA(4) of Rs. 85,87,725/- made by the A.O.” ITA No. 312/Ind/2018 – AY 2012-13: “(1) That on the facts and in the circumstances

Shreenathji Infrastructure P.Ltd., Pipariya vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Itarsi

ITA 312/IND/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 147Section 80Section 80I

facts and in the circumstances of the appellant’s case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) upholding the disallowance of deduction u/s 80IA(4) of Rs. 66,67,785/- made by the A.O.” ITA No. 311/Ind/2018 – AY 2010-11: “(1) That on the facts and in the circumstances ... facts and in the circumstances of the appellant’s case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) upholding the disallowance of deduction u/s 80IA(4) of Rs. 85,87,725/- made by the A.O.” ITA No. 312/Ind/2018 – AY 2012-13: “(1) That on the facts and in the circumstances

Shreenathji Infrastructure P.Ltd., Pipariya vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Itarsi

ITA 311/IND/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 147Section 80Section 80I

facts and in the circumstances of the appellant’s case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) upholding the disallowance of deduction u/s 80IA(4) of Rs. 66,67,785/- made by the A.O.” ITA No. 311/Ind/2018 – AY 2010-11: “(1) That on the facts and in the circumstances ... facts and in the circumstances of the appellant’s case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) upholding the disallowance of deduction u/s 80IA(4) of Rs. 85,87,725/- made by the A.O.” ITA No. 312/Ind/2018 – AY 2012-13: “(1) That on the facts and in the circumstances

Shreenathji Infrastructure P.Ltd., Pipariya vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Itarsi

ITA 310/IND/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Feb 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 147Section 80Section 80I

facts and in the circumstances of the appellant’s case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) upholding the disallowance of deduction u/s 80IA(4) of Rs. 66,67,785/- made by the A.O.” ITA No. 311/Ind/2018 – AY 2010-11: “(1) That on the facts and in the circumstances ... facts and in the circumstances of the appellant’s case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) upholding the disallowance of deduction u/s 80IA(4) of Rs. 85,87,725/- made by the A.O.” ITA No. 312/Ind/2018 – AY 2012-13: “(1) That on the facts and in the circumstances

ACIT, Circle-1, Noida vs. Jaiprakash Associates Limited, Noida

In the result, appeals of the Revenue

ITA 947/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar GargFor Respondent: Smt Abha Rani Singh
Section 143(3)

dismissed. 51. Ground no. 7 is with respect to deleting the addition of Rs. 107,91,88,917/- by denying the claim of deduction u/s. 80IA of the Act. 52. AO noticed that assessee had claimed deduction of Rs. 107,91,88,917/- in respect of three Captive Power ... Jaiprakash Associates Limited Plants units the details where are tabulated at page 12 of the order. AO noted that identical claim of deduction u/s 80IA in A.Y. 2009-10 was denied by the A.O. He noted that since the facts of the case in the year under consideration are identical

ACIT, Circle-1, Noida vs. Jaiprakash Associates Limited, Noida

In the result, appeals of the Revenue

ITA 946/DEL/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar GargFor Respondent: Smt Abha Rani Singh
Section 143(3)

dismissed. 51. Ground no. 7 is with respect to deleting the addition of Rs. 107,91,88,917/- by denying the claim of deduction u/s. 80IA of the Act. 52. AO noticed that assessee had claimed deduction of Rs. 107,91,88,917/- in respect of three Captive Power ... Jaiprakash Associates Limited Plants units the details where are tabulated at page 12 of the order. AO noted that identical claim of deduction u/s 80IA in A.Y. 2009-10 was denied by the A.O. He noted that since the facts of the case in the year under consideration are identical

ACIT, Circle-1, Noida vs. Jaiprakash Associates Limted, Noida

In the result, appeals of the Revenue

ITA 945/DEL/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar GargFor Respondent: Smt Abha Rani Singh
Section 143(3)

dismissed. 51. Ground no. 7 is with respect to deleting the addition of Rs. 107,91,88,917/- by denying the claim of deduction u/s. 80IA of the Act. 52. AO noticed that assessee had claimed deduction of Rs. 107,91,88,917/- in respect of three Captive Power ... Jaiprakash Associates Limited Plants units the details where are tabulated at page 12 of the order. AO noted that identical claim of deduction u/s 80IA in A.Y. 2009-10 was denied by the A.O. He noted that since the facts of the case in the year under consideration are identical

Addl. CIT, Special Range- 4, New Delhi vs. Ircon International Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is 52

ITA 6488/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Somil AggarwalFor Respondent: Smt Abha Rani Singh
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

2220/DEL/2011 for A.Y 2005-06 dated 30.01.2020 is reproduced below: ”36. Ground No. 2 relates to the deletion of disallowance of deduction u/s 80IA of the Act amounting to Rs. 26.71 crores made by the Assessing Officer. 37. The claim of deduction came up for adjudication for the first time ... view of the arguments advanced from the sides of both parties and decisions relied upon that appellant was developing infrastructure facility and claimed deduction u/s 80IA in respect of income derived from the development of infrastructure facilities. Explanation inserted below section 80IA(13) does not prevent developers in claiming deduction

Ircon International Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Special Range- 4, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is 52

ITA 6044/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Somil AggarwalFor Respondent: Smt Abha Rani Singh
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

2220/DEL/2011 for A.Y 2005-06 dated 30.01.2020 is reproduced below: ”36. Ground No. 2 relates to the deletion of disallowance of deduction u/s 80IA of the Act amounting to Rs. 26.71 crores made by the Assessing Officer. 37. The claim of deduction came up for adjudication for the first time ... view of the arguments advanced from the sides of both parties and decisions relied upon that appellant was developing infrastructure facility and claimed deduction u/s 80IA in respect of income derived from the development of infrastructure facilities. Explanation inserted below section 80IA(13) does not prevent developers in claiming deduction

DCIT, Hisar vs. M/S Synergy Waste Management Pvt. Ltd., Hisar

In the result, all the five captioned appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5704/DEL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Ramesh Goyal, CA &For Respondent: Ms Kajal Singh, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 119Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 170Section 170(1)Section 44ASection 801ASection 80I

case the ld.CIT(Appeals) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.4,12,98,981/- made on account of disallowance of deduction u/s 80IA of the Act, even though the assessee failed to file its return of income within the time prescribed under sub- section (1) of Section ... supporting the action of the AO, submitted that the ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made on account of disallowance of deduction u/s 80IA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the Act’), even though the assessee failed to file its return of income within the time

DCIT, Hisar vs. M/S Synergy Waste Management Pvt. Ltd., Hisar

In the result, all the five captioned appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5703/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Ramesh Goyal, CA &For Respondent: Ms Kajal Singh, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 119Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 170Section 170(1)Section 44ASection 801ASection 80I

case the ld.CIT(Appeals) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.4,12,98,981/- made on account of disallowance of deduction u/s 80IA of the Act, even though the assessee failed to file its return of income within the time prescribed under sub- section (1) of Section ... supporting the action of the AO, submitted that the ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made on account of disallowance of deduction u/s 80IA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the Act’), even though the assessee failed to file its return of income within the time

DCIT, Hisar vs. M/S Synergy Waste Management Pvt. Ltd., Hisar

In the result, all the five captioned appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5702/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Ramesh Goyal, CA &For Respondent: Ms Kajal Singh, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 119Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 170Section 170(1)Section 44ASection 801ASection 80I

case the ld.CIT(Appeals) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.4,12,98,981/- made on account of disallowance of deduction u/s 80IA of the Act, even though the assessee failed to file its return of income within the time prescribed under sub- section (1) of Section ... supporting the action of the AO, submitted that the ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made on account of disallowance of deduction u/s 80IA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the Act’), even though the assessee failed to file its return of income within the time

DCIT, Hisar vs. M/S Synergy Waste Management Pvt. Ltd., Hisar

In the result, all the five captioned appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5701/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Ramesh Goyal, CA &For Respondent: Ms Kajal Singh, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 119Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 170Section 170(1)Section 44ASection 801ASection 80I

case the ld.CIT(Appeals) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.4,12,98,981/- made on account of disallowance of deduction u/s 80IA of the Act, even though the assessee failed to file its return of income within the time prescribed under sub- section (1) of Section ... supporting the action of the AO, submitted that the ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made on account of disallowance of deduction u/s 80IA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the Act’), even though the assessee failed to file its return of income within the time

The ACIT, Central-1, Indore vs. M/S Prakash Oils Ltd., Dhar

In the result, the above captioned appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the

ITA 235/IND/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Jan 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Tulsian, CA &For Respondent: Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT, DR
Section 147

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI C.M. GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI

The Addl. CIT Range -1, Indore vs. M/S Prakash Oils Ltd., Dhar

In the result, the above captioned appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the

ITA 227/IND/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Jan 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Tulsian, CA &For Respondent: Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT, DR
Section 147

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI C.M. GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI

The ACIT, Central-1, Indore vs. M/S Prakash Oils Ltd., Dhar

In the result, the above captioned appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the

ITA 226/IND/2021[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Jan 2023AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Tulsian, CA &For Respondent: Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT, DR
Section 147

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI C.M. GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Surat vs. M/S Hi-Tech Sweet Water Technologies(P) Ltd., Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 230/SRT/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Jan 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.230/Srt/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2019-20) (Physical Court Hearing) Assistant Commissioner Of M/S Hi-Tech Sweet Water Income-Tax, Central Circle-2, Technologies (P.) Ltd., 5Th Room No.505, Floor, Vs. 4, Gopal Nagar, Nandeda Char Aayakar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Rasta, Gidc, Bardoli–394601 Surat-395001 (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaach7432C िनधा"रती क" ओर से Assessee By Shri Kiran K. Shah, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing 23/12/2022 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 30/01/2023

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250(4)Section 80I

three eligible undertakings u/s 80IA of the Act which are providing water treatment facilities to various state Government organizations. The assessee claimed deduction u/s 80IA of that Act of Rs.1,67,47,499/-. The said deduction was allowed to the assessee in the earlier assessment years in the orders passed ... claimed by the assessee under section 80IA of the Act should be disallowed. The issue before us is relating to disallowance of deduction u/s 80IA of the Act as the assessee did not file form 10CCB alongwith the Return of Income. According to the assessing officer, the deduction u/s 80IA

ITO Ward 62(4), New Delhi vs. Pratibha Sms Jv, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 3548/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Ms. Mansi Sotta, CAFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Pandey, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80I

account of deduction u/s 80IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (respectively), by ignoring the fact that the assessee is merely a contractor executing a job work for which it is paid periodically by way of advances and regular running payments or for the work executed ... terms and conditions mentioned in the tender documents/agreement. Deduction u/s 80IA(4) of the Act is to be provided to the developer of the infrastructural project only, who develop infrastructure projects by mobilizing its own resources & funds and undertaking the consequent investment risk. The assessee however, does not fulfill

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1(1)(1), Surat vs. Enviro Control Pvt. Ltd., Surat

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 307/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat18 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.274 & 307/Srt/2022 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: (2013-14 & 2017-18) (Virtual Court Hearing) Assistant Commissioner Of Enviro Control Pvt. Ltd., Income-Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Vs. Enviro House, Opp. Bank Of Surat, Room No.108, 1St Floor, Maharshtra, Ghod Dod Road, Surat- Aayakar Bhawan, Majura 395007 Gate, Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaace 8700 C (Assessee) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 14A

contractor but a developer and the assessee, doing the business in the nature of ‘Works Contract’, is not eligible for deduction u/s 80IA(4) of the Act. (ii) On the facts and circumstances of case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance on account ... assessee enterprise was only executing the contact works awarded by the Central and State Government and, therefore, not entitled to claim the deduction u/s 80IA(4) of the Act. (iv) On the basis of the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) ought