← 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

Deepak Narang, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle - 29, Delhi

In the result, Appeals of the Assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 3392/DEL/2023[A.Y. 2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita No. 3391/Del/2023 (A.Y. 2019-20) Deepak Narang Vs. Dcit A-2/66, Top Floor, Paschim Central Circle-29, 318, Income Vihar, West Delhi Tax Building, E-2, Ara Centre, Pan: Aafpn6476N Jhandewalan Extension, Delhi Appellant Respondent Dcit Vs. Deepak Narang Central Circle-29, 318, A-2/66,Top Floor, Paschim Income Tax Building, E-2, Vihar, Ara Centre, Jhandewalan West Delhi, Extension, Delhi Delhi Pan: Aafpn6476N Appellant Respondent

Section 132(1)Section 153ASection 153C

identical issue and Tribunal vide para 6.6 held as under:- "6.3 Further, the A.O. had made other additions (other than the claim of deduction u/s 80IA(4) of the I.T.Act) relying upon the materials marked as A/VSM/5,7,8,9,12,15,17 and a pen drive marked as A/VSM/16

Deepak Narang, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle -29, Delhi

In the result, Appeals of the Assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 3391/DEL/2023[A.Y. 2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita No. 3391/Del/2023 (A.Y. 2019-20) Deepak Narang Vs. Dcit A-2/66, Top Floor, Paschim Central Circle-29, 318, Income Vihar, West Delhi Tax Building, E-2, Ara Centre, Pan: Aafpn6476N Jhandewalan Extension, Delhi Appellant Respondent Dcit Vs. Deepak Narang Central Circle-29, 318, A-2/66,Top Floor, Paschim Income Tax Building, E-2, Vihar, Ara Centre, Jhandewalan West Delhi, Extension, Delhi Delhi Pan: Aafpn6476N Appellant Respondent

Section 132(1)Section 153ASection 153C

identical issue and Tribunal vide para 6.6 held as under:- "6.3 Further, the A.O. had made other additions (other than the claim of deduction u/s 80IA(4) of the I.T.Act) relying upon the materials marked as A/VSM/5,7,8,9,12,15,17 and a pen drive marked as A/VSM/16

Deepak Narang, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle - 29, New Delhi

In the result, Appeals of the Assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 3390/DEL/2023[A.Y. 2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita No. 3391/Del/2023 (A.Y. 2019-20) Deepak Narang Vs. Dcit A-2/66, Top Floor, Paschim Central Circle-29, 318, Income Vihar, West Delhi Tax Building, E-2, Ara Centre, Pan: Aafpn6476N Jhandewalan Extension, Delhi Appellant Respondent Dcit Vs. Deepak Narang Central Circle-29, 318, A-2/66,Top Floor, Paschim Income Tax Building, E-2, Vihar, Ara Centre, Jhandewalan West Delhi, Extension, Delhi Delhi Pan: Aafpn6476N Appellant Respondent

Section 132(1)Section 153ASection 153C

identical issue and Tribunal vide para 6.6 held as under:- "6.3 Further, the A.O. had made other additions (other than the claim of deduction u/s 80IA(4) of the I.T.Act) relying upon the materials marked as A/VSM/5,7,8,9,12,15,17 and a pen drive marked as A/VSM/16

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Dcm Shriram Ltd, New Delhi

ITA 927/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250Section 80GSection 80ISection 92C

wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has defined the principle for determination of market value of goods and services for the purpose of deduction u/s 80IA of the Act. 13. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. In the instant case, the assessee ... production of power and supply such power amongst others to its other non-eligible units. The power plants are eligible for claim of deductions u/s 80IA as per the provisions of Income Tax Act. As per the TP Study of the appellant (pages 95 to 211 of the Paper Book

Dcm Shriram Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-7(1), New Delhi

ITA 2587/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250Section 80GSection 80ISection 92C

wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has defined the principle for determination of market value of goods and services for the purpose of deduction u/s 80IA of the Act. 13. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. In the instant case, the assessee ... Thus the price charged for transfer of steam from eligible unit on eligible unit at cost of production for the purpose of claiming deduction u/s 80IA is hereby upheld. Ground No. 2 of the Revenue is dismissed. 25. The additional grounds of Revenue are in respect to the addition

Dcm Shriiram Limited, New Delhi vs. Neac, New Delhi

ITA 704/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250Section 80GSection 80ISection 92C

wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has defined the principle for determination of market value of goods and services for the purpose of deduction u/s 80IA of the Act. 13. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. In the instant case, the assessee ... production of power and supply such power amongst others to its other non-eligible units. The power plants are eligible for claim of deductions u/s 80IA as per the provisions of Income Tax Act. As per the TP Study of the appellant (pages 95 to 211 of the Paper Book

Shahi Exports Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 8, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5143/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2021-22] Shahi Exports Pvt.Ltd., Vs Acit, F-88, Okhla Industrial Area, Central Circle-8, Phase-I, New Delhi-110020. Delhi Pan-Aajcs1175L Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Shivam Malik, Adv. Respondent By Shri S.K.Jhadav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 01.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27.06.2025 Order

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 80ISection 92C

assessee is with regard to the transfer pricing adjustment of INR 33,59,64,275/- made by TPO/AO by reducing the deduction u/s 80IA of the Act with this amount on transfer of electricity from eligible unit to non-eligible unit. 3. Brief facts of the case are that ... vide its order dated 31.10.2023 u/s 92CA(3) of the Act, proposed the reduction in the claim of deduction u/s 80IA at INR 33,59,64,275/- by holding that the inter unit transfer of power and steam at the value declared by the assessee is not correct and accordingly

Dev Priya Products Private Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Meerut

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4433/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2020-21] Dev Priya Products Pvt.Ltd., Vs Dcit/Acit, 4, Shankar Vihar, 1St Floor, Central Circle, Vikas Marg, Delhi-110092. Meerut Pan-Aaacd4276C Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Ved Jain, Adv. & Shri Ayush Garg, Ca Respondent By Shri S.K.Jhadav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 02.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27.06.2025 Order

Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 80I

aggregate adjustment of INR 5,90,24,706/- was proposed by the TPO on specified domestic transactions as result of which the deduction u/s 80IA was reduced to this extent. The AO based on the proposal made by the TPO has passed the draft assessment order u/s 144C ... that the rate at which the PVVNL charges from consumer i.e. INR 9.30 per unit should be taken and accordingly, the claim of deduction u/s 80IA should be revised and enhanced deduction u/s 80IA be allowed to the assessee. 11. In Ground No.6, the assessee has challenged the transfer price

Universal Biomass Energy Private Limited, Guruharsahai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-3(1), Ferozepur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 267/ASR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 250Section 80I

case in brief are that the assessee company is engaged in running a power generation unit and is eligible to claim deduction u/s 80IA(4)(iv) of the Act 61, and accordingly has filed form 10CCB (audit report), but the same has been filed (uploaded) belatedly in the portal ... been accepted to have been properly explained and no additions made on that count. Regarding the second issue relating to the claim for deduction u/s 80IA, the same has been denied for belated filing of form 10CCB on 03/04/2021, even though the said audit report was available before

Shree Cement Limited, Bangur Nagar vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Ajmer

In the result, the appeal of the assessee - appellant in ITA No

ITA 1517/JPR/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jun 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dilip B. Desai, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 254Section 36(1)(va)Section 80Section 801A

direction to allow the claim of reliability charge of Rs. 1.5 per unit in computing Transfer Price of power for the purpose of deduction u/s. 80IA in respect of its eligible power undertaking. Vide additional ground no. 2 the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that direction be given ... allow the claim of deduction u/s 80IA on eligible solid waste management system as per Form no. 10CCB filed as the said claim is also covered by the decision of this co-ordinate bench for A. Y. 2015-16 36 Shree Cement Limited vs. ACIT to 2018-19. While arguing

Gfl Limited (Earlier Known As Gujarat Fluorochemicals Ltd.), Vadodara vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 210/AHD/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pushpendra Singh Chaudhary, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 263Section 80ISection 92C

presuming that while finalizing the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(3) of the I.T.Act on 13/02/2020, the Assessing Officer has allowed the deduction u/s 80IA of the I.T. Act of Rs.1,73,58,349/- in respect of Windmills, without verification of the facts which should have been made during

Pramod Lakra, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -11(1), Kolkata vs. Philips Carbon Black Ltd, Kolkata

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

ITA 2459/KOL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey&Shri Sanjay Awasthi]

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 35Section 35(2)(ab)Section 37Section 80GSection 80ISection 92C

preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) wherein the appeal of the assessee has been allowed on the issue relates to the deduction u/s 80IA, addition made on ICDS and partly allowed the disallowance u/s 80G and delay deposit of employees contribution and dismissed the appeal of the assessee ... deduction u/s 80G of the Act. The Ld. D.R has further submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law by allowing deduction u/s 80IA of the Act against the gross total income as against deduction restricted to profit and gains from specified business as per provision of Section

Pramod Lakra, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-11(1), Kolkata vs. Phillips Carbon Black Ltd, Kolkata

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

ITA 2458/KOL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey&Shri Sanjay Awasthi]

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 35Section 35(2)(ab)Section 37Section 80GSection 80ISection 92C

preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) wherein the appeal of the assessee has been allowed on the issue relates to the deduction u/s 80IA, addition made on ICDS and partly allowed the disallowance u/s 80G and delay deposit of employees contribution and dismissed the appeal of the assessee ... deduction u/s 80G of the Act. The Ld. D.R has further submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law by allowing deduction u/s 80IA of the Act against the gross total income as against deduction restricted to profit and gains from specified business as per provision of Section

Pramod Lakra, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 11(1), Kolkata vs. Phillips Carbon Black Ltd., Kolkata

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

ITA 2457/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey&Shri Sanjay Awasthi]

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 35Section 35(2)(ab)Section 37Section 80GSection 80ISection 92C

preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) wherein the appeal of the assessee has been allowed on the issue relates to the deduction u/s 80IA, addition made on ICDS and partly allowed the disallowance u/s 80G and delay deposit of employees contribution and dismissed the appeal of the assessee ... deduction u/s 80G of the Act. The Ld. D.R has further submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law by allowing deduction u/s 80IA of the Act against the gross total income as against deduction restricted to profit and gains from specified business as per provision of Section

Pramod Lakra, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 11(1), Kolkata vs. Phillips Carbon Black Ltd, Kolkata

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

ITA 2456/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey&Shri Sanjay Awasthi]

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 35Section 35(2)(ab)Section 37Section 80GSection 80ISection 92C

preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) wherein the appeal of the assessee has been allowed on the issue relates to the deduction u/s 80IA, addition made on ICDS and partly allowed the disallowance u/s 80G and delay deposit of employees contribution and dismissed the appeal of the assessee ... deduction u/s 80G of the Act. The Ld. D.R has further submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law by allowing deduction u/s 80IA of the Act against the gross total income as against deduction restricted to profit and gains from specified business as per provision of Section

Pcbl Limited, Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 11(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2034/KOL/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jun 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey&Shri Sanjay Awasthi]

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 35Section 35(2)(ab)Section 37Section 80GSection 80ISection 92C

preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) wherein the appeal of the assessee has been allowed on the issue relates to the deduction u/s 80IA, addition made on ICDS and partly allowed the disallowance u/s 80G and delay deposit of employees contribution and dismissed the appeal of the assessee ... deduction u/s 80G of the Act. The Ld. D.R has further submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law by allowing deduction u/s 80IA of the Act against the gross total income as against deduction restricted to profit and gains from specified business as per provision of Section

Eastman International, Ludhiana vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Ludhiana

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 782/CHANDI/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar &For Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250Section 41(1)Section 68Section 80I

engineering goods, rice and other merchandise. Return of income for A/Y 2020-21 was filed on 12.02.2021 declaring income at Nil after claiming deduction u/s 80IA at Rs. 12,81,92,907/-. However, the tax was paid as per provisions of Section 115JC -alternate minimum tax at an Income ... before the Learned Ld. CIT(A) was that "the NFAC gravely erred in computing additional tax liability by not allowing the claim of deduction u/s 80IA claim allowable by the assessee was Rs. 13,61,30,458/- as per Form 10CCB filed along with return, but claim

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Trichy vs. Kumarasamy Ramakrishnan, Karur

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3321/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपीलसं/.Ita Nos.:3315, 3316 & 3321/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri A. Sasikumar, CITFor Respondent: Shri.M.V.Prasad, C.A.&
Section 3Section 801ASection 801A(3)(ii)Section 80I

plant previously used for any purpose”. 3.4 The Ld. CIT (A) erred in not observing that in order to avail the benefit of deduction u/s 80IA, it is prerequisite that the assessee has not formed the new business with machinery previously used. 3.5 The Ld. CIT (A) erred ... gains derived by an undertaking….” 5.3 The ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the windmills in respect of which deductions u/s. 80IA had been claimed were previously used whereas the condition laid down in section 80IA(3)(ii) is, "it is not formed by the transfer

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Trichy vs. Kumarasamy Ramakrishnan, Karur

ITA 3315/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपीलसं/.Ita Nos.:3315, 3316 & 3321/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2018-19 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Taxх, Central Circle -1, Trichy. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Vs. Shri Kumarasamy Ramakrishnan, Ramakrishna Poultry Farm, No.79, Main Road, Thalavapalayam, Karur, Tamil Nadu – 639 113. [Pan:Aagpr-3421-A] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थीकी ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri A. Sasikumar, Cit प्रत्यर्थीकी ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri.M.V.Prasad, C.A.& Shri.K.S.Rajendra Kumar, C.A. सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27.03.2025 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05.06.2025 आदेश / Order Per S. R. Raghunatha: These Three Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai-19, Dated 07.10.2024, 04.10.2024 &04.10.2024And Pertain To Assessment Years 2019-20, 2020-21&2018-19 Respectively. Since, Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Being Heard Together & Disposed Off, By This Consolidated Order. :-2-:

For Appellant: Shri A. Sasikumar, CITFor Respondent: Shri.M.V.Prasad, C.A.&
Section 3Section 801ASection 801A(3)Section 801A(3)(ii)Section 80I

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'बी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, 'B' BENCH, CHENNAI श्री धुव्वुरु आर. एल रेड्डी

Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Hyderabad vs. Regency Ceramics Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue being devoid and bereft of any substance is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 1350/HYD/2024[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad02 Jun 2025AY 1998-99

Bench: Us:

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 33BSection 80HSection 80I

erroneous both on facts and in law. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in directing to allow the deduction U/s. 80IA r.w.s 33B though there was no reconstructed or revived of business units as per the provisions of section ... order of the CIT(A), and restored the matter to his file for fresh adjudication of the claim of the assessee company for deduction U/s. 80IA r.w.s 33B of the Act. 9. The CIT(A) during the course of the set-aside proceedings, after deliberating at length on the facts