“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

DCIT vs. M/S Fiza Developers & Intertrade Pvt. Ltd

In the result, the ground of appeal is allowed statistical purposes

ITA 1026/BANG/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jul 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Dilip for K.V. Arivind, Standing CounselFor Respondent: Sri Narendra Sharma, A.R

Section 131Section 153ASection 68Section 80Section 80I

revenue has raised following grounds of appeal:- “Ground No.1 The learned CIT (A) erred in law and in fact in allowing the deduction u/s. 80IA of the Income Tax Amounting to Rs.63,69,196/-. Ground No.2: The learned CIT(A) erred in law and in fact in deleting the addition ... statutory notices were issued to the assessee. On perusal of the return, the AO observed that the assessee has claimed deduction u/s 80IA of the Act at Rs.88,83,184/-. The AO observed that the claim of deduction of 80IA of the Act is not correct as per section 80IA

M/S. Kmv Projects Limited, Hyderabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 123/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Jul 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Kmv Projects Ltd., The Assistant 8-3-948/949, Level 4, Commissioner Of Solitair Plaza, Income Tax, Beside Image Hospital, Central Circle – Ameerpet, 2(4), Hyderabad – 500 073. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aadck0785C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Vilas V Shinde, Cit Date Of Hearing : 30-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 11-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 26/11/2021 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-11, Bangalore For A.Y. 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Under: For The Year Under Consideration, The Assessee Had Filed Its Return Of Income On 27/10/2020, Declaring An Income Of Rs.120,82,53,580/-. An Order U/S. 143(3) Of The Act Was Passed By The Ld.Ao On 24.12.2020 Determining The Total Income At Rs.130,55,46,012/- & Raising A Demand Of Rs.6,93,18,855/-.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vilas V Shinde, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 234BSection 234CSection 80I

assessee, in his grounds of appeal and also in Rs.2,43,69,785 /- 3 the written submissions made the claim of the deduction u/s 80IA, therefore, erred in not considering the same. The learned Commissioner erred in confining the adjudication only to the order u/s 154 without considering the Rs.2 ... grounds of appeal and written submissions, therefore, further erred in not allowing the deduction u/s 80IA claimed at Rs.8,12,32,615/-. The appellant craves leave to add to, amend or modify the above grounds Rs.2,43,69,785 /- 5 of appeal either before or at the time of hearing

M/S. Mother Earth Environ Tech Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-4(1)(4), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 276/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Sri Mahesh Kumar L., A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Besaganni, D.R

Section 139Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 80I

assessee s directed against order of Ld. CIT(A) dated 3.11.2021. The assessee has raised ground with regard to non- granting of deduction u/s 80IA of the Income-tax Act,1961 ['the Act' for short], though assessee filed form No.10CCB before processing the return u/s ... Bangalore Page 2 of 7 “Additional grounds of appeal: Legal Issue 1 – Filing Form 10CCB, is not mandatory condition to claim of deduction u/s 80IA(1) 1. Filing of Audit report in Form 10CCB is only a discretionary condition and not a mandatory condition as held by Honourable Supreme court

M/S. Rallis India Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT, Cicle-8(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 913/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanm/S. Rallis India Ltd Vs. Dcit, Circle – 8(1)(1) C/O Kalyaniwalla & Room No. 624, 6Th Mistry Llp, 2Nd Floor, Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Esplanade House, 29, M.K Road, Hazarimal Somani Mumbai – 400020. Marg, Mumbai – 400001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcr2657N Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Jitendra Jain.Ar Respondent By : Mr.S.N Kabra. Dr Date Of Hearing 03.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 04.07.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Principle Commissioner Of Income Tax (Pr.Cit) – 8, Mumbai Passed U/S 263 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Mr.Jitendra Jain.ARFor Respondent: Mr.S.N Kabra. DR

Section 10(34)Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(2)Section 14ASection 2(47)Section 263Section 263eSection 80Section 801A

Whereas the Pr.CIT was not satisfied with explanations and dealt unilaterally on the facts of the case and the claim of deduction u/s 80IA of the Act and long term capital loss(LTCL) on surrender of plot. The Pr.CIT finally observed that the order passed U/sec143 ... land. Hence the land transaction was a notional loss and should be disallowed by the Assessing Officer. 18. Further, the assessee also claimed deduction u/s 80IA of the Act on the insulator facility, whereas on perusal of the profit and loss account the Pr.CIT found that the assessee has considered

ACIT-24(1), Mumbai vs. M/S.Atul Properties, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of revenue are dismissed

ITA 4394/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 4393 & 4394/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years:2010-11 & 2011-12) Acit-24(1) बिधम/ M/S. Atul Properties Room No.604, Piramal 501-502, Trade Avenue, Off Vs. Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel, Suren Road, Western Express Mumbai-400012. Highway, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400093. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aamfa3756F (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Damor (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Naresh Jain/Mahaveer Jain & Ms. Carmi Shroff सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 13/05/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/06/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeal Preferred By Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-36, Mumbai Dated 29.12.2017 For A.Y.2010-11 & 2011- 12 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri Naresh Jain/Mahaveer Jain &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Damor (DR)

Section 80Section 801B(10)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN

ACIT-24(1), Mumbai vs. M/S.Atul Properties, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of revenue are dismissed

ITA 4393/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Naresh Jain/Mahaveer Jain &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Damor (DR)

Section 80Section 801B(10)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN

Essel Mining & Industries Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT - CC-1(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 602/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalessel Mining & Industries Limited Industry House, 18Th Floor, 10, Camac Street, Kolkata, West Bengal-700017 Pan: Aaace6607L ...... Appellant Vs. Dy. Cit, Central Circle-1(4), 9Th Floor, Old Cgo Building, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Yogesh Thar Respondent By : Sh. Amol B. Kirtane Date Of Hearing : 20/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 27/06/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-47, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Cit (A)’] Vide Order Dated 05.02.2021 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) {Hereinafter Referred To As The Cit(A)} Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of The Claim Of Carbon Credit Income As Capital Receipt Of Rs. 10,20,587/-. 2. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Common Expenses Of Rs. 59,27,000/-.

For Appellant: Sh. Yogesh TharFor Respondent: Sh. Amol B. Kirtane

Section 115JSection 14ASection 28Section 40Section 80I

expenses of Rs. 59, 27,000/- to the 80IA Units, in the ratio of their turnover to the total turnover and thus reduced deduction u/s 80IA by equivalent amount. 12.1 During the course of appellate proceedings, assessee relied upon decision of CIT(A) - 6, Kolkata, who allowed relief

Jt. CIT (OSD), CC-7(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Andhra Expressway Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1588/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1588/Mum/2021 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1589/Mum/2021 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Jcit (Osd), Cc-7(2), M/S Andhra Expressway Ltd. R. No. 655, Aayakar बनाम/ Ground Floor, Gammon Bhavan, M. K. Road, House, Veer Savarkar Vs. Mumbai-400020 Marg, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400 025 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aadca3577E (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलधथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Smt. Shailja Rai, Ld. Dr प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By Shri Rakesh Joshi, Ld. Ar : सुनवधईकीतधरीख/ : 01.06.2022 Date Of Hearing घोर्णधकीतधरीख / : 24.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeals Have Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Impugned Order Of Even Date 29.06.2021, Passed By 2

For Appellant: Smt. Shailja Rai, Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 32Section 32(1)(ii)Section 80I

this consolidated order. 3. In AY 2014-15, an additional issue which has been raised is in respect of claim of deduction u/s 80IA, rest other grounds are similar to grounds raised AY 2013-14. Therefore, we shall take up AY 2014-15 and our findings will apply mutatis mutandis ... facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing the claim of deduction u/s 80IA to the assessee company without appreciating the fact that as per the 'EPC Contract', the assessee-company has transferred all the duties and responsibilities contained

Savita Oil Technologies Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 47, Mumbai

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

ITA 867/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.867/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2008-09) M/S. Savita Oil बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-47 Technologies Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Vs. 66/67, Nariman Bhavan, Road, Mumbai-400020. Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacs7934A (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Hiro Rai Revenue By: Shri Sanjeev Kashyap सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 26/05/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24/06/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(A)-38, Mumbai Dated 21.11.2013 For The Assessment Year 2008-09. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Brought To Our Notice 2. That The Following Grounds Raised By The Assessee Is Neither Being Pressed Nor Does They Survive For The Reasons Given Therein As Under: - “(I) Ground.4- Disallowance U/S 14A In View Of Order Giving Effect To Cit(A) Order & Order U/S 154, Not Pressed Qua Balance Disallowance Of Rs.7,74,722/- (Ii) Ground No. 5 Disallowance As Capital Expenditure Since Depreciation (Ground No.6) Allowed, Not Pressed. (Iii) Ground No. 6 – Allowance Of Depreciation In Order U/S 154, Ao Has Allowed Depreciation. Hence, Does Not Survive.

For Appellant: Shri Hiro RaiFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Kashyap

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 158BSection 80Section 801ASection 80I

Ground no. 1 is against the action of Ld. CIT(A) confirming the action of AO disallowing its claim of deduction u/s 80IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”) for its unit at Silvassa on the ground that AY 2008-09 is the eleventh (11th) year ... 80IA of the Act and therefore it is a legitimate claim. 5. Brief facts is that the assessee company made a claim of deduction u/s 80IA of the Act to the tune of Rs.10,46,24,128 (revised to Rs.10,47,04,329) in respect of its industrial unit

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1)(2), Bangalore vs. M/S. Bangalore International Airport Limited, Bangalore

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, whereas the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 374/BANG/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 80Section 80I

matter of appeal. ITA No.191 & 374/Bang/2020 Page 4 of 25 III- The Ld. CIT (A) erred in allowing the assessee's claim of deduction u/s 80IA on "Other Income" which was not directly derived from its business activity. IV- The Ld. CIT (A) erred in allowing the assessee's claim ... deduction u/s 80IA on "Revenue share fee from food and beverages" by giving relief of 30% of revenue from non- aeronautical activity i.e. from food and beverages which is not sources from the business operation of assessee i.e. build, operate and maintenance of airport. V- The Ld. CIT (A) erred

M/S. Bangalore International Airport Limited, Bangalore vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 1, Bangalore

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, whereas the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 191/BANG/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 80Section 80I

M/S. Sajjan India Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 8(1) (1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 255/MUM/2022[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Om Prakash Kanti.T.A. No.255/Mum/2022 Assessment Year: 2005-06 M/S Sajjan India Limited ………….….……..….…..………………….……Appellant 2, Ground Floor, Cnergy I.T Park, Appa Saheb Marathe Marg, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400025. [Pan: Aaacs6498M] Vs. Acit, Circle-8(1)(1), Mumbai..…………….…………...……………..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri S L Jain, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sn Kabra Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 19, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 19, 2022 Order Per Sanjay Garg:

Section 10BSection 250Section 80Section 80I

setup and is approved under various sanctions and permissions. 2. The Hon'ble CIT(A) after holding that appellant is not entitled for deduction u/s 80IA , ought to have decided alternate claim of the appellant that if Captive Power Plant is not a separate undertaking, income and deduction allowable ... power plant in the premises of already running chemical manufacturing unit. The assessee claimed on the income of the said captive power plant deduction u/s 80IA(4) of the Act for Assessment Year 2005-06 onwards. The ld. Counsel has further submitted that the chemical manufacturing unit of the assessee

Mr. Jitendra Kumar Nahata, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Circle-6(1)(1) Represented by Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 41/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Smt. Sunaina Bhatia, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Sankarganesh K, JCIT (DR)

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 801ASection 801BSection 80ASection 80I

gross total income of Rs.1,43,39,512/- and claimed deduction under Chapter IVA u/s 80IA for Rs.36,82,815/- including the deduction u/s 80IA for Rs.35,02,815/- . Later on, the assessee filed revised return of income on 25/6/2018 declaring same income which was processed U/s ... which was not accepted and the order was passed on 9/1/2020 by rejecting the claim of the assessee of deduction u/s 80IA . Against the order of the sec. 154 of the Income- tax Act, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A) and CIT(A) did not allow the claim

Procter & Gamble Hygiene and Health Care Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT Cir 8, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by assessee stands allowed

ITA 4903/MUM/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 May 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 4903/मुं/2011 ("न.व. 2004-05) Procter & Gamble Hygiene & Health Care Ltd. P&G Plaza, Cardinal Gracias Road, Chakala, Andheri (East), Mumbai – 400 099 Pan: Aaacp-6332-M ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax,Cir.8, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 . ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Yogesh Thar ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Ms.Vatsalya Saxena & Shri Tejinder Pal Singh Anand सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 11/02/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 09/05/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh TharFor Respondent: Ms.Vatsalya Saxena and Shri Tejinder Pal Singh Anand

Section 143(3)Section 80Section 80I

Section 80IA(2) of the Act, if the conditions set out in sub-section (2) are satisfied, the industrial undertaking is eligible for deduction u/s 80IA of the Act. The relevant extract of the judgement reads as under: “16. What the assessing officer has done, in these cases, is that

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1(4), Mumbai vs. Samruddhi Cement Limited (Since Amalgamated Into M/S.Ultratech Cement Limited), Mumbai

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

ITA 5318/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 May 2022AY 2011-12

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 43Section 43B

that the L&T Ltd, on whose request the private sidings were set up at all these four locations, never claimed any such deduction u/s 80IA(4). The deductions are being claimed by the assessee company since AY 2004-05, after the various cements plants were transferred to the assessee ... held that the assessee is eligible for deduction us BOIA in rlo profits from rail system. Accordingly, the AO was directed to allow deduction u/s 80IA. Now the department is in appeal here before the Tribunal. 15. The Id DR on the other hand placed reliance on the order

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1(4), Mumbai vs. Samruddhi Cement Limited (Since Amalgamated Into M/S.Ultratech Cement Limited), Mumbai

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

ITA 4835/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 May 2022AY 2010-11

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 43Section 43B

M/S Yojaka (India) Pvt Ltd, Mangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1), Mangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3360/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranita No.3359 & 3360/Bang/2018 Assessment Year : 2010-11 & 2011-12

For Appellant: Smt. M.R. Vanaja, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R

Section 80I

both the appeals for hearing. 4. The solitary issue urged in both these appeals relate to the eligibility of the assessee to claim deduction u/s 80IA(4) of the Act. The assessee claimed deduction of Rs.79,65,440/- and Rs.7,68,402/- u/s 80IA of the Act respectively for assessment ... assessee. The AO held that the assessee has only executed works contract and hence the assessee is not eligible for deduction u/s 80IA of the Act in view of the specific Explanation inserted at the end of sec. 80IA by Finance Act, 2000. The AO also noticed that identical claim

M/S Yojaka (India) Private Limited, Mangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1), Mangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3359/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranita No.3359 & 3360/Bang/2018 Assessment Year : 2010-11 & 2011-12

For Appellant: Smt. M.R. Vanaja, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R

Section 80I

Larsen & Toubro Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 6908/MUM/2012[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman () & Shri Amarjit Singh ()

Generating (DG) Units at its cement plants in Gujarat, Andhra Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh. DG units constitute separate undertaking and the appellant claimed deduction u/s 80IA in respect of profits generated by these DG units. The AO relied on order by his predecessor and stated that the claim of assessee ... Larsen & Toubro Asstt.Yrs 2001-02 & 2001-02 deduction u/s 80IA for Captive Power Generating (DG) units was not accepted. Thus following the order in previous year, it was held that profits in respect of DG units cannot be held as profits earned from an undertaking engaged in the business

Hubtown Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT (Central)-4, Mumbai

ITA 696/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M.Balaganeshआअसं.696/मुं/2021(िन.व. 2015-16) Hubtown Limited, Cts No. 469A, Hubtown Seasons, 1, R.C. Marg, Chembur (East), Mumbai-400071. Pan: Aaaca6101D ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Pcit (Central), Room No. 663, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. ..... "ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Sh. Vijay Mehta "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Sh. Purushottam Tripuri, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 01/02/2022 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 26/04/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Principle Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central)-4, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Pcit’] Dated 30.03.2021 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’).

For Appellant: Sh. Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Sh. Purushottam Tripuri, CIT-DR

Section 263Section 80I

Tribunal de-hors the assessment order for AY 2015-16 has come to the conclusion that the assessee is eligible to claim deduction u/s 80IA(10) of the Act on SRA project at Mayanagar, Worli approved under DC Regulation 33(10). Once, the issue has been decided in favour