← 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

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 274/SRT/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat18 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

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

Satya Narayan Dhoot, Jodhpur vs. Pr. CIT-1, Jodhpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in respect of above said three issues

ITA 49/JODH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur17 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Sandeep Gosain (Jm) I.T.A. No. 49/Jodh/2022 (A.Y. 2017-18) Vs. Pcit-1 Satya Narayan Dhoot C/O Rajendra Jain Advocate Jodhpur 106, Akshay Deep Complex 5Th B Road, Sardarpura Jodhpur, Rajasthan-342 001. Pan : Aanpd4945L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rajendra Jain Department By Smt. Alka Rajvanshi Jain Date Of Hearing 03.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 17 .01.2023 O R D E R Per B.R.Baskaran (Am) :-

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 80I

assessment record, the Ld PCIT took the view that the AO has not properly examined the following issues:- (a) AO has allowed deduction u/s 80IA of the Act without setting off brought forward unabsorbed depreciation of wind mill as required u/s 80IA(5) of the Act. (b) AO has allowed ... allowed u/s 80IA of the Act. The assessee has operated two wind mills named as M-77 and DLG-95. The assessee claimed deduction u/s 80IA of the Act in respect of the above said two units. The assessee has started claiming deduction u/s 80IA

M/S Mkc Infrastructure Ltd., Anjar vs. The Asstt. Commr. Income Tax, Circle, Gandhidham

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 91/RJT/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot13 Jan 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: The Hearing Of Appeal.”

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT-D.R
Section 13Section 143(3)Section 80I

80IA(4) of the Act on ground that the assessee is not a Developer but is a Contractor and therefore not eligible for deduction u/s 80IA(4) of the Act. The AO further alleged that the assessee has not maintained separate accounts for each infrastructure facilities and hence assessee failed ... 91/Rjt/2015 A.Y. 2010-11 Page No 3 M/s. MKC Infrastructure Ltd. vs. ACIT “In light of above facts & discussion, I disallow the deduction u/s 80IA claimed by assessee j on all of the grounds given below (which were all necessary together): a) Assessee has not constructed or developed any infrastructure

ACIT(Central)-1, Bhopal vs. M/S. Bansal Construction Work (P) Ltd., Bhopal

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 822/IND/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore11 Jan 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEBER, SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTNT MEMBER The ACIT, Central-I, Bhopal

For Appellant: Shri Anil Khabya, A.RFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Mitra, CIT-D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 801Section 80ISection 92Section 92BSection 92E

erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 15,39,20,130/- made by the A.O., CPC (Bangalore) on account of disallowance of deduction u/s 80IA(4).” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a private limited company engaged in the business of development and construction ... return of income for A.Y. 2015-16 on 30-11-2015 declaring gross total income at Rs. 38,48,00,317/- and claimed deduction u/s. 80IA(4) of the Act of Rs. 15,39,20,130/-. Subsequently, the assessee filed revised return of income

ACIT, Circle-21(1), New Delhi vs. Railtel Corporation of India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, cross-objection of the Assessee is 15

ITA 8652/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jan 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri N.K Choudhry

For Appellant: Shri Omprakash RajpurohitFor Respondent: Shri A K Arora, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80I

Return filed on 02-05-2018 against the notice issued U/s 147/148. 6. The Ld. Dy. Commissioner has neither allowed revised claim of deduction U/s 80IA claimed based on decision of Honorable High Court of Delhi in the case of Principal commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi

Anugraha Fashion Mill Private Limited, Tirupur vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal in I

ITA 883/CHNY/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.883 & 865/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 M/S. Anugraha Fashion Mill Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, 15, Suriyan Nagar, Income Tax, Abt Rod New Extn., Karuvampalayam, Centralized Processing Centre, Tirupur 641 604. Bangalore 650 500. [Pan:Aahca3311Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Yeshwanth Kumar, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 12.12.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.12.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 3, Coimbatore Dated 31.08.2020 & 28.09.2020 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2017-18. I.T.A. No. 883/Chny/2020 2. The Appellate Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act”] Dated 31.08.2020 Has Not Been Digitally Signed & Thereby There Was A Mistake Apparent On Record. The Above

For Appellant: Shri Yeshwanth Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 80I

other technical violations can be disallowed by the AO, CPC. They will not go into the conditions stipulated under the Act, for claiming deduction u/s 80IA. As you can see in the new amendments brought in from AY 2017-18 as well as Rule 3 I.T.A. Nos.883 & 865/Chny/20 ... automatically disallow deduction u/s 80IA, if it is found that Form 10CCB was not filed with the Original Return of Income. Here it is pertinent to note that it is the Original Return of Income which was scrutinised u/s 143(3). It is not the same return of income which

Anugraha Fashion Mill Private Limited, Tirupur vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal in I

ITA 865/CHNY/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.883 & 865/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 M/S. Anugraha Fashion Mill Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, 15, Suriyan Nagar, Income Tax, Abt Rod New Extn., Karuvampalayam, Centralized Processing Centre, Tirupur 641 604. Bangalore 650 500. [Pan:Aahca3311Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Yeshwanth Kumar, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 12.12.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.12.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 3, Coimbatore Dated 31.08.2020 & 28.09.2020 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2017-18. I.T.A. No. 883/Chny/2020 2. The Appellate Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act”] Dated 31.08.2020 Has Not Been Digitally Signed & Thereby There Was A Mistake Apparent On Record. The Above

For Appellant: Shri Yeshwanth Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 80I

other technical violations can be disallowed by the AO, CPC. They will not go into the conditions stipulated under the Act, for claiming deduction u/s 80IA. As you can see in the new amendments brought in from AY 2017-18 as well as Rule 3 I.T.A. Nos.883 & 865/Chny/20 ... automatically disallow deduction u/s 80IA, if it is found that Form 10CCB was not filed with the Original Return of Income. Here it is pertinent to note that it is the Original Return of Income which was scrutinised u/s 143(3). It is not the same return of income which

Century Textiles and Industries Limited, Mumbai vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax – 6(2)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the Assessee are allowed

ITA 2085/MUM/2022[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Dec 2022AY 2009-2010
Section 80Section 801ASection 80I

market price to be adopted in respect of inter unit transfer of power under captive consumption, for the purpose of claiming deduction u/s 80IA of the Act. 3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. We find that assessee is engaged in the business ... Assessee Company has several units which are located in different parts of the country. The Assessee Company has claimed deduction u/s 80IA of the Act in respect of the following two power plants:- A. Century Cement thermal Power Plant (II)(10 MW) - Rs. 14,98,17117/- B. Maihar Cement thermal

Asst Comm of Income Tax -6(1) (1), Mumbai vs. Century Textiles and Industries Ltd, Mumbai

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the Assessee are allowed

ITA 1967/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Dec 2022AY 2011-12
Section 80Section 801ASection 80I

market price to be adopted in respect of inter unit transfer of power under captive consumption, for the purpose of claiming deduction u/s 80IA of the Act. 3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. We find that assessee is engaged in the business ... Assessee Company has several units which are located in different parts of the country. The Assessee Company has claimed deduction u/s 80IA of the Act in respect of the following two power plants:- A. Century Cement thermal Power Plant (II)(10 MW) - Rs. 14,98,17117/- B. Maihar Cement thermal

DCIT Central Circle -2(2), Maharashtra vs. M/S. Vinati Organics Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue vide

ITA 445/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhdeputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Vinati Organics Ltd Income Tax, Cc, 2(2) 1102, Parinee Crescezo, Old Cgo Building, G, Block, Plot No. 806, 8Th Floor, M.K. Road C38/39, Behind Mca, Mumbai – 400020 Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East Mumbai – 400 051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaacv6538K Respondent .. Appellant M/S Vinati Organics Ltd Vs. Acit, Cc-2(2) 11Th Floor, 1102, Parinee Crescezo, G, Block, Plot No. C38/39, Behind Mca, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East Mumbai – 400 051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaacv6538K Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Nishant Thakker &For Respondent: Hemant Kumar Chimanlal
Section 143(2)

find any merit in this ground of appeal of the assessee, therefore, the same stand dismissed. Additional Ground: Claim of deduction u/s 80IA on account of generation of power: ITA No.445 & 402/Mum/2022 A.Y. 2012-13 14 DCIT, CC-2(2) Vs. M/s Vinati Organics Ltd. 12. During the course ... appellate proceedings vide letter dated 01.08.2022 the assessee filed the additional ground for claim of deduction u/s 80IA on account of generation of power. 13. Heard both the side and perused the material on record. The assessee claimed that it has coal based boiler which generate powers in the form

M/S. Vinati Organics Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue vide

ITA 402/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhdeputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Vinati Organics Ltd Income Tax, Cc, 2(2) 1102, Parinee Crescezo, Old Cgo Building, G, Block, Plot No. 806, 8Th Floor, M.K. Road C38/39, Behind Mca, Mumbai – 400020 Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East Mumbai – 400 051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaacv6538K Respondent .. Appellant M/S Vinati Organics Ltd Vs. Acit, Cc-2(2) 11Th Floor, 1102, Parinee Crescezo, G, Block, Plot No. C38/39, Behind Mca, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East Mumbai – 400 051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaacv6538K Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Nishant Thakker &For Respondent: Hemant Kumar Chimanlal
Section 143(2)

find any merit in this ground of appeal of the assessee, therefore, the same stand dismissed. Additional Ground: Claim of deduction u/s 80IA on account of generation of power: ITA No.445 & 402/Mum/2022 A.Y. 2012-13 14 DCIT, CC-2(2) Vs. M/s Vinati Organics Ltd. 12. During the course ... appellate proceedings vide letter dated 01.08.2022 the assessee filed the additional ground for claim of deduction u/s 80IA on account of generation of power. 13. Heard both the side and perused the material on record. The assessee claimed that it has coal based boiler which generate powers in the form

Asstt Comm of Income Tax 6(1) (1), Mumbai vs. Century Textiles & Industries Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1886/MUM/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.1886 /Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax बिधम/ Century Textiles & Industries Ltd 6(1)(1) Vs. 2Nd Floor, Century Bhavan, Room No. 504, Aaykar Bhavan, Dr Annie Besant Road, M.K.Road, Churchgate, Worli, Mumbai- 400030 Mumbai- 400020 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacc2659Q (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri. Yogesh Thar Revenue By: Shri. Asif Karmani, Sr Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing: 26/10/2022 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/11/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri. Yogesh TharFor Respondent: Shri. Asif Karmani, Sr AR
Section 263Section 80Section 801ASection 80I

applying the rate at which the State Electricity Board supply electricity, with regard to 1 AY. 2010-11 Century Textiles and Industries Ltd deduction u/s 80IA, without considering that the assessee had shown the sale price of power in its books at cost price only"? 2. "On the facts ... market price of power supplied to captive unit at the rate of which the State Electricity Board supplies electricity, with regard to deduction u/s 80IA, without excluding the government duties and taxes as such levy is involved in transfer of power from one unit to another"? 3. The appellant prays

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

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid

ITA 5598/MUM/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 5598/मुं/2017 ("न.व. 2005-06) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax – 8(3)(2), Room No.615, 6Th Floor, Aaykarbhavan, M.K.Road, ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Mumbai – 400 020 बनाम Vs. M/S. Vodafone India Ltd. (Formerly Vodafone Essar Ltd.) Peninsula Corporate Park, Ganpat Rao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai 400 013. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent Pan: Aaach-5332-B आअसं. 5078/मुं/2017 ("न.व. 2005-06) M/S. Vodafone India Ltd. (Formerly Vodafone Essar Ltd.) Peninsula Corporate Park, Ganpat Rao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai 400 013. ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aaach-5332-B बनाम Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax – 8(3)(2), Room No.615, 6Th Floor, Aaykarbhavan, M.K.Road, ...... ""तवाद"/Respondent Mumbai – 400 020 Revenue By : S/Shrianand Mohan&Ajay K.R.Kesari Assessee By :S/Shri Salil Kapoor, Ketanved & Ms. Soumya Singh

For Appellant: S/Shri Salil Kapoor, KetanVed and Ms. Soumya SinghFor Respondent: S/ShriAnand Mohan&Ajay K.R.Kesari
Section 114Section 143(3)Section 263Section 801ASection 80I

Learned CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in allowing assessee's grounds of appeal pertaining to deduction u/s. 80IA without appreciating that the claims of the assessee in this regard were inadmissible in view of the commencement of assessee's business prior to A.Y. 1996-97. 4. Whether ... 801A. 5. Whether on the facts & circumstances of the case and in law the Learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that quantum of deduction u/s. 80IA is required to be computed as if the eligible business were the only source of income during the every assessment year for which such

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

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid

ITA 5078/MUM/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 5598/मुं/2017 ("न.व. 2005-06) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax – 8(3)(2), Room No.615, 6Th Floor, Aaykarbhavan, M.K.Road, ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Mumbai – 400 020 बनाम Vs. M/S. Vodafone India Ltd. (Formerly Vodafone Essar Ltd.) Peninsula Corporate Park, Ganpat Rao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai 400 013. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent Pan: Aaach-5332-B आअसं. 5078/मुं/2017 ("न.व. 2005-06) M/S. Vodafone India Ltd. (Formerly Vodafone Essar Ltd.) Peninsula Corporate Park, Ganpat Rao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai 400 013. ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aaach-5332-B बनाम Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax – 8(3)(2), Room No.615, 6Th Floor, Aaykarbhavan, M.K.Road, ...... ""तवाद"/Respondent Mumbai – 400 020 Revenue By : S/Shrianand Mohan&Ajay K.R.Kesari Assessee By :S/Shri Salil Kapoor, Ketanved & Ms. Soumya Singh

For Appellant: S/Shri Salil Kapoor, KetanVed and Ms. Soumya SinghFor Respondent: S/ShriAnand Mohan&Ajay K.R.Kesari
Section 114Section 143(3)Section 263Section 801ASection 80I

Learned CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in allowing assessee's grounds of appeal pertaining to deduction u/s. 80IA without appreciating that the claims of the assessee in this regard were inadmissible in view of the commencement of assessee's business prior to A.Y. 1996-97. 4. Whether ... 801A. 5. Whether on the facts & circumstances of the case and in law the Learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that quantum of deduction u/s. 80IA is required to be computed as if the eligible business were the only source of income during the every assessment year for which such

Essel Mining & Industries Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-Central-1, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3202/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Nov 2022AY 2009-10
Section 127(2)Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 153CSection 263

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, the compensation received being not income derived from generation of electricity, it does not qualify for deduction u/s 80IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which will entail into considering the impugned amount as Revenue Receipt and denial of the benefit of deduction u/s 801A ... receipt as claimed by the Assessee. Further, this being income not derived from the business of generation of electricity does not qualify for deduction u/s 80IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which negates the Assessee's claim that the variation, if any, is Revenue Neutral Further, it needs

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in ITA No

ITA 1554/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Nov 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Us:-

Section 143(3)Section 153C

placed by the ld. AO on the said petty cash book Annexure A-8 for making this addition for A.Y.2009-10. F. Denial of deduction u/s 80IA of the Act with respect to Rail System – Rs 112,12,25,027/- We find that this disallowance was made based on the Mumbai ... course of search. In any case, this decision of tribunal has been reversed and in later decisions, the Mumbai Tribunal had granted deduction u/s 80IA of the Act for the rail system itself. Hence, there cannot be any reliance that could be placed on any search material for denying this

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in ITA No

ITA 1551/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Us:-

Section 143(3)Section 153C

placed by the ld. AO on the said petty cash book Annexure A-8 for making this addition for A.Y.2009-10. F. Denial of deduction u/s 80IA of the Act with respect to Rail System – Rs 112,12,25,027/- We find that this disallowance was made based on the Mumbai ... course of search. In any case, this decision of tribunal has been reversed and in later decisions, the Mumbai Tribunal had granted deduction u/s 80IA of the Act for the rail system itself. Hence, there cannot be any reliance that could be placed on any search material for denying this

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in ITA No

ITA 1023/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Nov 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Us:-

Section 143(3)Section 153C

placed by the ld. AO on the said petty cash book Annexure A-8 for making this addition for A.Y.2009-10. F. Denial of deduction u/s 80IA of the Act with respect to Rail System – Rs 112,12,25,027/- We find that this disallowance was made based on the Mumbai ... course of search. In any case, this decision of tribunal has been reversed and in later decisions, the Mumbai Tribunal had granted deduction u/s 80IA of the Act for the rail system itself. Hence, there cannot be any reliance that could be placed on any search material for denying this

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in ITA No

ITA 1021/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Us:-

Section 143(3)Section 153C

placed by the ld. AO on the said petty cash book Annexure A-8 for making this addition for A.Y.2009-10. F. Denial of deduction u/s 80IA of the Act with respect to Rail System – Rs 112,12,25,027/- We find that this disallowance was made based on the Mumbai ... course of search. In any case, this decision of tribunal has been reversed and in later decisions, the Mumbai Tribunal had granted deduction u/s 80IA of the Act for the rail system itself. Hence, there cannot be any reliance that could be placed on any search material for denying this

Asst CIT Ltu, Mumbai vs. Ambuja Cements Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6405/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2022AY 2007-08
Section 143(3)Section 28

facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) was not justified and grossly erred in confirming the denial of deduction u/s 80IA on Infrastructure facility, being Port at Muldwarka unit on the contention that prescribed certificates were not filed along with the return of income