“eligible business”

DeductionsSection 80IASection 80IA975 judgments

The decision most relied on for eligible business is Totgars Co-operative Sale Society Ltd. v. ITO (322 ITR 283), cited in 1,283 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on eligible business

Totgars Co-operative Sale Society Ltd. v. ITO

322 ITR 283 · 2010 · Supreme Court

1,283

citing judgments

The interest income earned by a cooperative society from investing its surplus funds in fixed deposits with banks is not "derived from" its eligible business activities and is taxable as "income from other sources" under Section 56, thus not qualifying for deduction under Section 80P.

State Bank Of India v. CIT

389 ITR 578 · 2016 · High Court

817

citing judgments

Income arising from a cooperative society's surplus funds invested in short-term deposits and securities is not attributable to the society's core activities and, therefore, is not eligible for exemption under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income-tax Act.

Liberty India v. CIT

317 ITR 218 · 2009 · Supreme Court

571

citing judgments

The Supreme Court clarified that for profits and gains to be eligible for deductions under sections like 10B, 80IA, or 80IB, the income must be "derived from" or have a direct nexus to the eligible business activity. Income from incidental sources like the sale of scrips/licenses or interest on employee loans is generally not considered as derived from the eligible business for such deductions.

CIT v. Smifs Securities Ltd.

348 ITR 302 · 2012 · Supreme Court

540

citing judgments

Goodwill, whether arising from an amalgamation or a slump sale, is an intangible asset eligible for depreciation under Section 32(1) of the Income-tax Act. While the assessee must prove the existence and valuation of such goodwill, it is recognized as a depreciable asset.

Citizen Co-operative Society Ltd. v. ACIT

397 ITR 1 · 2017 · Supreme Court

499

citing judgments

A co-operative credit society engaged in banking business with the general public, accepting deposits from non-members and advancing loans to non-members, is treated as a co-operative bank. Such a society falls under the exclusionary clause of Section 80P(4) and is not eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i).

Totgar's Co-operative Sale Society Ltd. v. ITO

188 Taxmann 282 · 2010 · Supreme Court

486

citing judgments

Interest income earned by a co-operative society from investments, particularly with co-operative banks, is not eligible for deduction under Section 80P as it is not attributable to the core business activities of the society and constitutes "other income", not "profits and gains of business".

Pandian Chemicals Ltd. v. CIT

262 ITR 278 · 2003 · Supreme Court

353

citing judgments

Income eligible for deduction under Section 80IA or 80IC must have a direct nexus with the eligible business activity of the industrial undertaking. Income merely incidental to the business, even if part of the assessee's overall business, is not considered "derived from" the eligible undertaking.

CIT v. Sterling Foods

237 ITR 579 · 1999 · Supreme Court

311

citing judgments

Income eligible for profit-linked deductions under sections like 80-IC or 10B must have a direct nexus to the eligible business activity or be derived from the industrial undertaking itself, and not merely attributable to it or arising from a post-manufacturing event.

Judgments citing eligible business

Power Links Transmission Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Special Range- 7, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4599/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13 Powerlinks, Transmission Ltd. Vs Additional 10Th Floor, Dlf Tower-A, Commissioner Of District Centre, Jasola, Income Tax, Spl. Range New Delhi. 7 New Delhi Pan No. Aabct7775M (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 3ASection 80I

assessee which was complied by the assessee. The ld. Assessing officer has re-computed the income of the assessee company as under: Income from eligible business (a) Rs.103,26,21,467/- B/F depreciation of AY 2008-09(b) Rs. 28,76,36,805/- Income from eligible business ... Sources Rs. 11,33,18,252/- Total income (a) Rs. 89,35,55,341/- Deduction to be claimed u/s 80IA (Restricted to income from eligible business) Rs. 74,49,84,662/- Taxable Income Rs. 14,85,70,679/- The assessing officer has also started the penalty proceedings against the assessee

ACIT, Paota C Road vs. Varaha Infra Limited, Paota B Road

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 160/JODH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur01 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhaithe Acit Vs M/S. Vardha Infra Ltd. Room No. 215, Aayakar Bhawan 6 Jalam Vilas Scheme Paota C Road, Jodhpur Paota B Road, Jodhpur (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccv 7972 K

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40

reproduced below - "Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in section 28 to 43C, in the case of an eligible assessee engaged in an eligible business, a sum equal to eight per cent of teh total turnover or gross receipts of the assessee in th previous year on account of such

Celestial Avenues Pvt Ltd Rep. by Csk Properties Pvt Ltd on Merger-PAN-Aadcc3990R, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -1(2), Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 212/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad01 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha G, Hon’Bleआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.212 To 214/Hyd/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09) M/S. Sabir, Sew & The Deputy Commissioner Of Prasad, Jv, Vs. Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle – 6(1), Hyderabad. Pan : Abcfs2425A अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri A. Srinivas, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Sr.DR

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 801ASection 801A(4)Section 80I

erred in not directing the AO to allow the deduction under Section 80IA of the Act based on the "total income of the eligible business as finally computed and assessed by the AO," which includes adjustments arising from additions or disallowances made during assessment. 16.12. The AR argued that under ... SABIR, SEW & PRASAD JV Under Section 80IA(1) of the Act, the deduction is allowed in respect of "profits and gains derived from the eligible business." Section 80IA(5) of the Act further stipulates that for computing the deduction, the eligible business is treated as the "only source of income

Rajinder Kumar, Chandigarh vs. Surjeet Kuar, ITO Ward 1(2), Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 276/CHANDI/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh31 Dec 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjeet Kaur, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 44A

this regard, I refer to the provisions of Section 44AD which provides that in the case of an eligible assessee engaged in an eligible business, a sum equal to eight per cent of the total turnover or gross receipts of the assessee in the previous year on account of such ... provisions of Chapter VI-A under the heading "C.-Deductions in respect of certain incomes" in the relevant assessment year; and the term “eligible business" has been defined as any business except the business of plying, hiring or leasing goods carriages referred to in section 44-AE; and (ii)whose

Hotel Deepak, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle -3, Thane

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 3562/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Rohra, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.K. Chaturvedi, Sr. A.R

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 250

basis. 44AD. (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in sections 28 to 43C, in the case of an eligible assessee engaged in an eligible business, a sum equal to eight per cent of the total turnover or gross receipts of the assessee in the previous year on account

DCIT Circle 1(1), Pune, Swargate vs. Entrata India Pvt. Ltd, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 66/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.133/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Entrata India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Circle-1(1), Pune. International Tech Park, Block-1, Wing-A, 14Th Floor, Kharadi, Pune- 411014. Pan : Aaacw7089A Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.66/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dcit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Vs. Entrata India Pvt. Ltd., International Tech Park, Block-1, Wing-A, 14Th Floor, Kharadi, Pune- 411014. Pan : Aaacw7089A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kishor B. Phadke Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing 14.11.2024 : Date Of Pronouncement : 24.12.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Dated 24.11.2023 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-13, Pune [‘Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.133/Pun/2024 For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 32

inferred the existence of "arrangement" between the parties to the transaction. The expression "Ordinary profits used in sec. 801A(10) connotes reasonable profit from eligible business which can be ascertained only by analyzing the cases of comparable companies. Having regard to the profit margins declared by comparable cases identified ... There are two pre-requisites to invoke section 80-1A(10) Viz (i) existence of a close connection between the assessee carrying on eligible business and any other person; and, (ii) that the course of business is so arranged that the business transacted produces to the assessee more than

Entrata India Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 133/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 32

ACIT, Mumbai vs. Celerity Power, Mumbai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 2302/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantand

For Appellant: Mr. Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56Section 80

from the sale of Renewable Energy Certificate is nothing but an ancillary profit and beyond the first-degree source, the same is not an eligible business within the meaning of section 80-IA of the Act. Accordingly, the amount of INR 4,14,29,310 was treated as “income from

M/S Celerity Power, Mumbai vs. ACIT, 19(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2234/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 56Section 80

Eastern Cargo Carriers (India) Private Limited, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India vs. The Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department

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

ITA 4610/MUM/2023[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2024AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2021-22 M/S Eastern Cargo Carriers (India) The Assessment Unit, Income Tax Pvt. Ltd., Department, Vs. Unit No. 26, Adarsh Ind. Estates, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Sahar Road, Andheri East, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400099. Pan No. Aaace 1520 E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Niraj Sheth a/wFor Respondent: Mr. Hemanshu Joshi, Sr. DR

Section 40A(2)(a)

submissions of the appellant. Interest I have gone through the submissions of the appellant. Interest payment on late payment of TDS is not eligible business expenditure on late payment of TDS is not eligible business expenditure on late payment of TDS is not eligible business expenditure for deduction ... assessee and hold that interest payment on late payment of tax at assessee and hold that interest payment on late paymen source is not eligible business expenditure for deduction and it is not source is not eligible business expenditure for deduction and it is not source is not eligible business

Saini Co Operative Tharift and Credit Society Ltd, Delhi vs. CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi

ITA 836/DEL/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Dec 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahmanita No. 834/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 836/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Saini Co-Operative Thrift & Credit Vs Cit(A)-16, Society Ltd., 2420-2421, Bazar New Delhi-110002 Kamra Bangash, A. G. C. R. Central Delhi, New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabas8396K Assessee By : Sh. K. Sampath, Adv. & Sh. V. Rajkumar, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Sahil Kumar Bansal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 12.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.12.2024 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: These Assessee’S Twin Appeal In Ita No. 834/Del/2024 For Assessment Years 2011-12, Arise Against The Cit(A)-16, New Delhi’S Order Dated 06.08.2019 Passed In Case No. 10333/2018-19 In Proceedings U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 & It’S Latter Appeal Ita No. 836/Del/2024 For A.Y. 2015-16, Is Directed Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1059607361(1) Dated 11.01.2024, In Proceedings U/S 271B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”), Respectively.

For Appellant: Sh. K. Sampath, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Sahil Kumar Bansal, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 271BSection 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

representing it’s interest received from fixed deposit in cooperative society/cooperative/nationalized banks; as the case may be, as not “derived” from the eligible business in light of Totgar’s Co-operative Sale Society Ltd. Vs. ITO (2010) 322 ITR 283 (SC). 4. Learned departmental representative vehemently supports the impugned disallowance

Saini Co Operative Tharift and Credit Society Ltd, Delhi vs. CIT(A)-16, Delhi

ITA 834/DEL/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Dec 2024AY 2011-2012

For Appellant: Sh. K. Sampath, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Sahil Kumar Bansal, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 271BSection 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

Ethix Healthcare, Chandigarh vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle, Parwanoo

In the result, both on the exercise of jurisdiction u/s 147 and on merits of the case, the order of the AO as well as the ld CIT(A) is hereby set-aside and matter is decided in favour of the assessee

ITA 501/CHANDI/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh17 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri VivekVardhan, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 80Section 80I

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च"ीगढ़ "ायपीठ “ए” , च"ीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “A”, CHANDIGARH HEARING

Orient Paper & Industries Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 5(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1488/KOL/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Dec 2024AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey

Section 143(3)Section 80ISection 92C

relevant assessment year. The only issue is with regard to the quantum of profits and gains of the eligible business of the assessee and the resultant deduction under Section 80 IA of the Act.The higher the profits and gains, the higher would be the quantum of deduction. Conversely ... profits and gains of the eligible business of the assessee is determined at a lower figure, the deduction under Section 80-IA would be on the lower side. Assessee had computed the profits and gains by taking Rs. 3.72 as the price of electricity per unit supplied by its captive

A.B. Sugars Limited, Punjab vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 300/CHANDI/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Dec 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri T.N. Singla, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80ISection 92C

Point No. 27 of the said Form and also states the Book Profit derived by the undertaking from the Eligible business at Rs. 19,17,26,089 at point no. 29 along with the same Taxable Profit for which deduction is allowable under section 80-IA{4)(iv) is also ... wherein it was held that the quantum of deduction eligible under section 80IA has to be determined by computing the gross total income from eligible business after taking into consideration all the deductions allowable under section 30 to 43D including depreciation under Section

A.B. Sugars Limited, Punjab vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 299/CHANDI/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Dec 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri T.N. Singla, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80ISection 92C

Spectrum Talent Management Private Limited, Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, CPC Bangalore

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

ITA 3313/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.3313/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21 बनाम Spectrum Talent Management Dcit Private Limited, Vs. Cpc, Bangalore, B-46, Retreat Apartments, 20, Karnataka. 1.P. Extension, Delhi. Pan No. Aarcs4776M अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 80ASection 80J

r.w.s. 80JJAA and as clarified by the CBDT Circular no. 37/2016 dated 02.11.2016 which result direct whereas of enhancement of the profit of the eligible business and deduction under chapter VIA is admissible on the profits so enhanced by the I.T.A. No. 3313/Del/2024 disallowance. Therefore, the Addl/JCIT(A) failed

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Nagpur vs. M/S Mahavir Global Coal Limited, Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 101/NAG/2018[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur12 Dec 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Ms. Alfia RozieFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 4Section 801ASection 80I

w.e.f. 01.01.2000 provides for deduction of an amount equal to 100% of profits and gains derived by an undertaking or enterprise from an eligible business as referred to in sub-section 4 of section 801A in accordance with the prescribed provisions. The term eligible business had been defined to include

Maliyana Co-Operative Cane Development Union, Gorakhpur vs. ITO, Ward-1(1)(4), Meerut

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 1874/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganeshita No. 1874/Del/2023 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Maliyana Co-Operative Cane Vs Income Tax Officer, Development Union, C/O D. S. Kohli, Ward-1(1)(4), F.F.-06, Narayan Tower, Gandhi Meerut, U.P. Ashram Lane, Golghar, Gorakhpur, U.P.-273001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaam6185F Assessee By : Sh. Ibad Mushtaq, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.12.2024 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2017-18, Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1051871860(1) Dated 05.04.2023 In Proceedings U/S 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. Ibad Mushtaq, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)

Sale Society Ltd. Vs. ITO 322 ITR 283 (SC) that such an interest income could not be held to have been derived from the eligible business u/s 80P(2) of the Act. 5. We find no merit in the Revenue’s instant vehement arguments in light of (2024) 164 taxmann.com

Goldman Sachs (India) Securiteis Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Add/Jt/Dy/Asst/CIT/ITO/NFAC, Delhi

ITA 763/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Ms. Neena Jeph, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 253(1)Section 92C

amount actually paid by the Appellant for the ESOP cost during the year under consideration. 4. In disallowing 5% of the following eligible business expenditure which are debited to the profit and loss account amounting to Rs 3,79,50,079 (i.e. 5% of Rs. 75,90,01,585) stating ... above, the learned AO has erred in law and in fact to make an ad-hoc disallowance to the extent of 5% of eligible business expenditure although the Hon'ble DRP has agreed with the contentions of the Appellant that there is no provision under the law basis which certain