← 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

The ACIT, Circle-4, Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Metrochem Industries Limited, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeals of Revenue and appeals/cross objection of the assessee allowed/ dismissed as under:

ITA 1190/AHD/2005[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2022AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 1998-1999 M/S Metrochem Industries Ltd., Dy. Commissioner Of Income 505-506, While House, Panchwati, Vs. Tax, Circle-4, Ahmedabad-380 006. 112, 1St Floor, Avjivan Trust Bldg. Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-14. Pan No. Aabcm 8019 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2001-02 Metrochem Industries Ltd., The Income Tax Officer Ward 4(2), 505/506, Suryarath, Nr. Vs. Ahmedabad. Panchvati Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad-380 006. Pan No. Aabcm 8019 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2001-02 The Acit, Cir-4, Ahmedabad, Metrochem Industries Ltd., Navjivan Trust Bldg. Off. Ashram Vs. 505/506, Suryarath, Nr. Panchvati Road, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad. Pan No. Aabcm 8019 K Appellant Respondent M/S Metrochem Industries Ltd., Assessment Year: 2003-04 M/S Metrochem Industries Ltd., Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 505-506, Surya Rath, Nr. Vs. Circle-4, Panchwati, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad-380 006. Pan No. Aabcm 8019 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2003-04 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S Metrochem Industries Ltd., Circle-4, Vs. 505-506, Surya Rath, Nr. Navjivan Trust Bldg. Off. Ashram Panchwati, Ellisbridge, Road, Ahmedabad-380 006. Ahmedabad. Pan No. Aabcm 8019 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2004-05 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Metrochem Industries Ltd., Circle-4, Vs. 505-506, Surya Rath Building, B/H, Navjeevan Building Ashram Road, White House, Panchwati, Ahmedabad. Ambawati, Ahmedabad. Pan No. Aabcm 8019 K Appellant Respondent Co No. 50/Ahd/2008 (Ita No. 87/Ahd/2008) Assessment Year: 2004-05 Metrochem Industries Ltd., Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax 505-506, Surya Rath Building, Vs. Circle-4, B/H, White House, Panchwati Navjeevan Building Ashram Road, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad-06 Pan No. Aabcm 8019 K

Section 115JSection 244ASection 245Section 80H

disallowance is excessively high. It is submitted that substantial portion of the disallowance be deleted. 7. The CIT(A) erred in not allowing deduction u/s 80IA as per provisions of law. Deduction 80IA be allowed as per the provisions of law. 7.1 The AO had provided no reasonable opportunity ... being heard before making variations to the eligible profit entitled to deduction u/s 80IA. The M/s Metrochem Industries Ltd., are void ab initio. It be so held. 7.2 The CIT(A) erred upholding exclusion of ₹11,894/- while computing eligible profit entitled to deduction u/s 80IA. Interest was derived

M/S I G Petrochemicals Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) of the I

ITA 207/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.S.Parthasarathi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.S.Praveena, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 40Section 80I

assessment year 2010-2011 will apply mutatis mutandis for other assessment years as well. 4.1 Brief facts in relation to the claim of deduction u/s 80IA of the I.T.Act are as follows: For the assessment year 2010-2011, the assessee had claimed deduction u/s 80IA of the I.T.Act amounting ... independent of the main plant. It was contended that the assessee generated identifiable marketable commodity, i.e., power and accordingly, was eligible to claim deduction u/s 80IA of the I.T.Act in respect of power plant set up by it. In this context, the assessee relied on various judicial pronouncements including

M/S.L.G Petrochemicals Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, the disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) of the I

ITA 1957/BANG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.S.Parthasarathi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.S.Praveena, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 40Section 80I

assessment year 2010-2011 will apply mutatis mutandis for other assessment years as well. 4.1 Brief facts in relation to the claim of deduction u/s 80IA of the I.T.Act are as follows: For the assessment year 2010-2011, the assessee had claimed deduction u/s 80IA of the I.T.Act amounting ... independent of the main plant. It was contended that the assessee generated identifiable marketable commodity, i.e., power and accordingly, was eligible to claim deduction u/s 80IA of the I.T.Act in respect of power plant set up by it. In this context, the assessee relied on various judicial pronouncements including

M/S.L.G Petrochemicals Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, the disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) of the I

ITA 1956/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.S.Parthasarathi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.S.Praveena, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 40Section 80I

assessment year 2010-2011 will apply mutatis mutandis for other assessment years as well. 4.1 Brief facts in relation to the claim of deduction u/s 80IA of the I.T.Act are as follows: For the assessment year 2010-2011, the assessee had claimed deduction u/s 80IA of the I.T.Act amounting ... independent of the main plant. It was contended that the assessee generated identifiable marketable commodity, i.e., power and accordingly, was eligible to claim deduction u/s 80IA of the I.T.Act in respect of power plant set up by it. In this context, the assessee relied on various judicial pronouncements including

M/S.L.G Petrochemicals Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, the disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) of the I

ITA 1955/BANG/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.S.Parthasarathi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.S.Praveena, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 40Section 80I

assessment year 2010-2011 will apply mutatis mutandis for other assessment years as well. 4.1 Brief facts in relation to the claim of deduction u/s 80IA of the I.T.Act are as follows: For the assessment year 2010-2011, the assessee had claimed deduction u/s 80IA of the I.T.Act amounting ... independent of the main plant. It was contended that the assessee generated identifiable marketable commodity, i.e., power and accordingly, was eligible to claim deduction u/s 80IA of the I.T.Act in respect of power plant set up by it. In this context, the assessee relied on various judicial pronouncements including

Reliance Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Large Taxpayer Unit-2, Mumbai

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 2876/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2022AY 2015-16
Section 143(3)Section 28

Court in the case of Associated Capsules (P) Ltd (supra). The High Court was concerned with the eligibility of the assessee to claim deduction u/s 80IA and 80HHC of the Act. The provisions of sec. 80IA(9) provided that where any amount of profits and gains of an undertaking

DCIT (Ltu)-2, Mumbai vs. M/S Reliance Industries Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 2344/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2022AY 2014-15
Section 143(3)Section 28

Court in the case of Associated Capsules (P) Ltd (supra). The High Court was concerned with the eligibility of the assessee to claim deduction u/s 80IA and 80HHC of the Act. The provisions of sec. 80IA(9) provided that where any amount of profits and gains of an undertaking

Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Mumbai

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 1645/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2022AY 2014-15
Section 143(3)Section 28

Court in the case of Associated Capsules (P) Ltd (supra). The High Court was concerned with the eligibility of the assessee to claim deduction u/s 80IA and 80HHC of the Act. The provisions of sec. 80IA(9) provided that where any amount of profits and gains of an undertaking

Sri. P. Shyamaraju, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 9/BANG/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Mar 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.V.Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.S.Praveena, CIT-DR
Section 54FSection 79A

confirm, reduce, enhance or annul the assessment only (after amendment made through the Finance Act, 2001).” 17. The assessee’s claim for deduction u/s 80IA(4)(iii) of the I.T.Act was denied by the Assessing Officer by observing as under:- “Even after providing ample number of opportunities the assessee ... deduction claimed u/s 80IA(4)(iii) is not granted, even for the owned portion. In the event of clear bifurcation being available, the deduction u/s 80IA(4)(iii) will be eligible for consideration.” 18. On further appeal, the CIT(A) by following her predecessor’s order for assessment year

Sri. P. Shyamaraju, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 8/BANG/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Mar 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.V.Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.S.Praveena, CIT-DR
Section 54FSection 79A

confirm, reduce, enhance or annul the assessment only (after amendment made through the Finance Act, 2001).” 17. The assessee’s claim for deduction u/s 80IA(4)(iii) of the I.T.Act was denied by the Assessing Officer by observing as under:- “Even after providing ample number of opportunities the assessee ... deduction claimed u/s 80IA(4)(iii) is not granted, even for the owned portion. In the event of clear bifurcation being available, the deduction u/s 80IA(4)(iii) will be eligible for consideration.” 18. On further appeal, the CIT(A) by following her predecessor’s order for assessment year

M/S Shyamaraju & Co (India) Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7/BANG/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.V.Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.S.Praveena, CIT-DR
Section 54FSection 79A

confirm, reduce, enhance or annul the assessment only (after amendment made through the Finance Act, 2001).” 17. The assessee’s claim for deduction u/s 80IA(4)(iii) of the I.T.Act was denied by the Assessing Officer by observing as under:- “Even after providing ample number of opportunities the assessee ... deduction claimed u/s 80IA(4)(iii) is not granted, even for the owned portion. In the event of clear bifurcation being available, the deduction u/s 80IA(4)(iii) will be eligible for consideration.” 18. On further appeal, the CIT(A) by following her predecessor’s order for assessment year

M/S Shyamaraju & Co (India) Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6/BANG/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Mar 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.V.Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.S.Praveena, CIT-DR
Section 54FSection 79A

confirm, reduce, enhance or annul the assessment only (after amendment made through the Finance Act, 2001).” 17. The assessee’s claim for deduction u/s 80IA(4)(iii) of the I.T.Act was denied by the Assessing Officer by observing as under:- “Even after providing ample number of opportunities the assessee ... deduction claimed u/s 80IA(4)(iii) is not granted, even for the owned portion. In the event of clear bifurcation being available, the deduction u/s 80IA(4)(iii) will be eligible for consideration.” 18. On further appeal, the CIT(A) by following her predecessor’s order for assessment year

ACIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Shyamaraju & Co India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1650/BANG/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Mar 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.V.Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.S.Praveena, CIT-DR
Section 54FSection 79A

confirm, reduce, enhance or annul the assessment only (after amendment made through the Finance Act, 2001).” 17. The assessee’s claim for deduction u/s 80IA(4)(iii) of the I.T.Act was denied by the Assessing Officer by observing as under:- “Even after providing ample number of opportunities the assessee ... deduction claimed u/s 80IA(4)(iii) is not granted, even for the owned portion. In the event of clear bifurcation being available, the deduction u/s 80IA(4)(iii) will be eligible for consideration.” 18. On further appeal, the CIT(A) by following her predecessor’s order for assessment year

M/S. Karnataka Power Corporation Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 11(5), Bangalore

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

ITA 26/BANG/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 115JSection 80I

next issue relates to the relates partial disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80IA of the Act. The assessee is eligible for deduction u/s 80IA of the Act in respect of ADPH unit and accordingly claimed deduction thereon to the tune of Rs.39.60 crores. The AO noticed that the assessee ... said two units should be set off of against the profit earned in the ADPH unit (eligible undertaking) for the purpose of computing deduction u/s 80IA of the Act and accordingly scaled down the deduction to Rs.23.05 crores. 9.1 Before Ld CIT(A), the assessee contended that each unit should

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 4(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S. Karnataka Power Corporation Limited, Bangalore

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

ITA 10/BANG/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 115JSection 80I

next issue relates to the relates partial disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80IA of the Act. The assessee is eligible for deduction u/s 80IA of the Act in respect of ADPH unit and accordingly claimed deduction thereon to the tune of Rs.39.60 crores. The AO noticed that the assessee ... said two units should be set off of against the profit earned in the ADPH unit (eligible undertaking) for the purpose of computing deduction u/s 80IA of the Act and accordingly scaled down the deduction to Rs.23.05 crores. 9.1 Before Ld CIT(A), the assessee contended that each unit should

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

ITA 7155/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. A. D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Meenakshi J. Goswami, CIT(DR)
Section 801ASection 80I

Engineering, Electrical Communication and turn key projects in India as well as abroad. ITA No.2401/Del/2013 A.Y. 2006-07: (Assessee’s Appeal) Disallowance of Deduction u/s 80IA: 2. The assessee earned profit from development of infrastructure project at Srinagar-Barahmulla Rail Project in J&K and PMGSY Patna project wherein roads ... have been developed in Bihar. The assessee earned total profit of Rs.36,14,02,300/- and claimed the same as deduction u/s 80IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. Aggrieved with the confirmation of disallowance of deduction by the ld. CIT(A) who held that the assessee

Ircon International Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Circle-12(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

ITA 5460/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. A. D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Meenakshi J. Goswami, CIT(DR)
Section 801ASection 80I

Engineering, Electrical Communication and turn key projects in India as well as abroad. ITA No.2401/Del/2013 A.Y. 2006-07: (Assessee’s Appeal) Disallowance of Deduction u/s 80IA: 2. The assessee earned profit from development of infrastructure project at Srinagar-Barahmulla Rail Project in J&K and PMGSY Patna project wherein roads ... have been developed in Bihar. The assessee earned total profit of Rs.36,14,02,300/- and claimed the same as deduction u/s 80IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. Aggrieved with the confirmation of disallowance of deduction by the ld. CIT(A) who held that the assessee

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Ircon International Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

ITA 528/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. A. D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Meenakshi J. Goswami, CIT(DR)
Section 801ASection 80I

Engineering, Electrical Communication and turn key projects in India as well as abroad. ITA No.2401/Del/2013 A.Y. 2006-07: (Assessee’s Appeal) Disallowance of Deduction u/s 80IA: 2. The assessee earned profit from development of infrastructure project at Srinagar-Barahmulla Rail Project in J&K and PMGSY Patna project wherein roads ... have been developed in Bihar. The assessee earned total profit of Rs.36,14,02,300/- and claimed the same as deduction u/s 80IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. Aggrieved with the confirmation of disallowance of deduction by the ld. CIT(A) who held that the assessee

Shahi Exports Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 843/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Delhi17 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Shah, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 37Section 40A(2)Section 80ISection 92BSection 92C

thereby inclusive therein the super productivity incentive is arbitrary, unjust, not based on comparable and bad in law. 4. That the disallowance of deduction u/s 80IA of the Act amounting to Rs 26,20,451/-, as sustained by DRP/ AO out of total deduction claimed by the Assessee

Ferani Hotels Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC 4 (1), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal is allowed

ITA 7610/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jan 2022AY 2011-12
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80Section 80I

Total Income, while passing the original Assessment Order u/s 143(3) of the Act. The CIT(A) also erred in not allowing the Deduction u/s 80IA & 80IB of the Act to the extent of the said addition of Rs. 17,49,360/- , as done while allowing deduction u/s 80IA & 80IB ... determining the total income at Rs 3,28,52,196/- wherein the assessee's entire claim of deduction u/s. 80IA & 80IB of Rs. 1,65,98,33,576/- was allowed. Subsequently, the AO received information from the office of GIT (Inv) Mumbai vide letter dated 09.03.2015 that the assessee