← All Phrases

“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

M/S.State Bank of India(Successor to State Bank of Travancore), Trivandrum vs. The ACIT, Trivandrum

ITA 252/COCH/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Sri Ninad Patade, CAFor Respondent: Sri Dr. S. Pandian, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 36(1)(vili)Section 43B

erred in confirming the order of AO abating eligible deduction u/s 36(1)(viii) ignoring the method of accounting for eligible business consistently followed by appellant. 1.2. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that whereas the method adopted by appellant involved allocating only those expenses which is referable to income ... from specified 7 ITA.Nos. 251 & 252/Coch./2017 business the method adopted by AO allocating all expenses regardless they are referable to eligible business or not is artificial, arbitrary and unreasonable. 2. Disallowance of provision made for sick leave: The CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of provision made

M/S.State Bank of India(Successor to State Bank of Travancore), Trivandrum vs. The ACIT, Trivandrum

ITA 251/COCH/2017[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2024AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Sri Ninad Patade, CAFor Respondent: Sri Dr. S. Pandian, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 36(1)(vili)Section 43B

erred in confirming the order of AO abating eligible deduction u/s 36(1)(viii) ignoring the method of accounting for eligible business consistently followed by appellant. 1.2. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that whereas the method adopted by appellant involved allocating only those expenses which is referable to income ... from specified 7 ITA.Nos. 251 & 252/Coch./2017 business the method adopted by AO allocating all expenses regardless they are referable to eligible business or not is artificial, arbitrary and unreasonable. 2. Disallowance of provision made for sick leave: The CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of provision made

DCIT, Circle - 11(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Graphite India Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, considering the discussions made above, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed and the cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 473/KOL/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Sept 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 62Section 801ASection 80I

assessee by taking price at which electricity was sold to UPPCL - Whether price which had been adopted by assessee for electricity generated by eligible business transferred to its other business would be considered for purpose of computation of profits and gains of eligible business in terms of section

Guru Nanak Steel Traders, Yamuna Nagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, Yamuna Nagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 782/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Tejmohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 115Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 68Section 69A

income has been accepted by the AO without any adverse findings, it shows that the assessee’s assertion that he is engaged in eligible business as so defined u/s 44AD and the turnover so disclosed is from his eligible business has been accepted. In the said background, if we look

Senbo Engineering Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-11, Kolkata.

ITA 1377/KOL/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Sept 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Years: 2007-08 Senbo Engineering Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of 87, Lenin Sarani, Vs Income Tax, Circle-11, Kolkata - 700013 Kolkata - 700013 (Pan: Aadcs6138B) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. Bhattacharya, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80Section 80I

carry on the activity signed or issued by the Central government or the State Government or the Local authority for carrying on the eligible business - Notification No.240/2002 dated 06.09.02. Further under B-O-L-T scheme of India Railways Concession u/s. 80IA is applicable only to an Infrastructure Facility meant ... BOT/BOOT projects, then it will be clear what 'financing' means. It actually means bringing in fund on its own for execution of the eligible business and not get any- thing from the government or local authority or statutory body. Because, that is why the section 80IA was introduced. I find

Venkateshwara Wires Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 322/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: The Ld. Ao As Well As Before The Ld. Cit(A) As The Documents Submitted Was Only In Support Of Confirmations & Other Documents Already Submitted & No New Documents Were Submitted. 2. The Assessee Craves Your Indulgence To Add Amend Or Alter All Or Any Grounds Of Appeal Before Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Sh. S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anoop Singh, Addl. CIT
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 801ASection 80I

order added a sum of Rs. 4,02,369 being the amount of apportionment of the expenses to the eligible and non-eligible business. The ld. AO also added a sum of Rs. 32,684/- being the amount of receipt not eligible for deduction u/s. 80IA ... commission paid to other selling agents, credit card sale expenses, carriage outward, shop expenses, royalty expenses are directly related to business activities of non-eligible business and, therefore, they have to be excluded for apportionment of expenses between eligible and non-eligible expenses. I am in agreement with the appellant

Sundaram Home Finance Limited, Chennai vs. PCIT - 3, Chennai

ITA 1646/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Sept 2024AY 2018-19
For Respondent: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viii)

amount Rs.29,00,00,000 to the Special reserve account. However, it claimed Rs.32,34,08,900/- being 20% of the Profits from the eligible business as deduction u/s 36(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act,1961. The accounts of the assessee shows that as on 31.03.2018, the assessee ... Rs.29,00,00,000 under special reserve. The other condition also states the deduction shall not exceed twenty percent of the profit from the eligible business. The assessee claimed the deduction at Rs. 32,34,08,900 stating that this represents 20% of the profit from the business. However

Sai Refinery, Parwanoo vs. DCIT, Parwanoo

The appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for

ITA 707/CHANDI/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Mangla, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 37(1)Section 70Section 80I

holding that the income of Rs. 3,85,58,386/- being duty drawback, currency fluctuation gain and interest are not derived from eligible business and are thus not eligible for deduction u/s 80IC of the Act. 4. That the Ld. AO grossly erred in law in holding that prior computing ... deduction u/s 80IC profits from eligible business are to be set-off against the losses under other heads as per the provisions of Sec. 70 of the Act and restricting the claim of deduction to Rs. 24,53,867/- as against the claim of the appellant

Fatehpuria Transformers and Switchgears Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. PCIT-1, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 224/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjeev Kumar Mathur, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Ajay Malik, CIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80I

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, PCIT, erred in law and on facts in allocating common expenses amounting to Rs. 5,43,483/- to the eligible business without considering the fact that operation and maintenance of wind mill is sole responsibility of third party. 5. The petitioner craves the right ... insurance charges no other expenses have been claimed in these units. Since the assessee is engaged in the eligible as well as non-eligible business has not allocated the common expenses and therefore by a sum of Rs. 5,43,483/- was required to be allocated to eligible business

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1), Hyderabad vs. Union Bank of India, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1230/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1018/Hyd/2017 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13) Andhra Bank Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Hyderabad Circle 1(1) Pan:Aabca7375C Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1230/Hyd/2017 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 ) Dy. C. I. T. Vs. Andhra Bank Circle 1(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aabca7375C (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Ananthan, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Kumar Pranav, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 02/07/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 28/08/2024 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M These Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee, As Well As The Revenue, Are Directed Against The Order Dated 16/02/2016 Of Page 1 Of 59

For Appellant: Shri Ananthan, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Kumar Pranav, CIT(DR)
Section 36(1)(vi)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 41(4)

created reserve for Rs.165 crore u/s 36(1)(viii) of the Act, towards profits and gains from business/profession for providing long term finance to eligible business entities. The Assessing Officer recomputed the deduction u/s 36(1)(viii) of the Act, by taking into account operating profit of the assessee

Union Bank of India, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissisoner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1018/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1018/Hyd/2017 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13) Andhra Bank Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Hyderabad Circle 1(1) Pan:Aabca7375C Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1230/Hyd/2017 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 ) Dy. C. I. T. Vs. Andhra Bank Circle 1(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aabca7375C (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Ananthan, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Kumar Pranav, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 02/07/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 28/08/2024 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M These Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee, As Well As The Revenue, Are Directed Against The Order Dated 16/02/2016 Of Page 1 Of 59

For Appellant: Shri Ananthan, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Kumar Pranav, CIT(DR)
Section 36(1)(vi)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 41(4)

created reserve for Rs.165 crore u/s 36(1)(viii) of the Act, towards profits and gains from business/profession for providing long term finance to eligible business entities. The Assessing Officer recomputed the deduction u/s 36(1)(viii) of the Act, by taking into account operating profit of the assessee

Aet Laboratories Private Limited, Medak vs. DCIT, Circle-8(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 963/HYD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Aug 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.963/Hyd/2017 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11) Aet Laboratories (P) Ltd Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Medak Circle 8(1) Pan:Aadcm6591L Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri A Srinivas, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 26/08/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 26/08/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri A Srinivas, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Srinath Sadanala, DR
Section 10B

fact remains that in the present case, the question of set off of brought forward business and unabsorbed depreciation against profits of the eligible business for the purpose of section 10B does not arise, because after exclusion of other income, the profits for the purpose of section 10B computed

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 4(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Shilp Gravures Limited, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 798/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Division Bench, Ahmedabad Has Arisen

For Appellant: Shri S N Divatia, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Santosh Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 8Section 80I

observed that quantum of deduction u/s.80IA of the Act has to be computed after deduction of notional brought forward losses and depreciation of eligible business though have been allowed set off against other income in earlier years. The AO observed that the assessee is not eligible for deduction u/s.80IA ... case of Goldmine Share and Finance Private Limited(supra), wherein ITAT observed that while computing deduction u/s 80IA, the profit from the eligible business for the purpose of determination of the quantum of deduction u/s 80IA has to be computed after deduction of the notional brought forward losses and depreciation

Visakhapatnam Industrial Water Supply Company Ltd, Visakhapatnam vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 229/VIZ/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam14 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.137, 138 & 139/Viz/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08) Visakhapatnam Industrial Water V. Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Circle – 4(1) Supply Company Limited Income Tax Office C/O. Gvmc, Room No. 204 Pratyakshakar Bhavan Teneti Bhavan, Asilmetta Junction Mvp Double Road Visakhapatnam – 530002 Visakhapatnam – 530017 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aabcv2240H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No. 229/Viz/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Visakhapatnam Industrial Water V. Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Circle – 5(1) Supply Company Limited Income Tax Office C/O. Gvmc, Room No. 204 Pratyakshakar Bhavan Teneti Bhavan, Asilmetta Junction Mvp Double Road Visakhapatnam – 530002 Visakhapatnam – 530017 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aabcv2240H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 43B

viii) of the Act. Section 36(1)(viii) of the Act provides the specified entity an opportunity of deduction of profit from the eligible business which is carried to a reserve account. However, it is not mandatory to claim such deduction and it cannot be considered as a pre-requisite

Visakhapatnam Industrial Water Supply Company Ltd, Visakhapatnam vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 139/VIZ/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam14 Aug 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.137, 138 & 139/Viz/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08) Visakhapatnam Industrial Water V. Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Circle – 4(1) Supply Company Limited Income Tax Office C/O. Gvmc, Room No. 204 Pratyakshakar Bhavan Teneti Bhavan, Asilmetta Junction Mvp Double Road Visakhapatnam – 530002 Visakhapatnam – 530017 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aabcv2240H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No. 229/Viz/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Visakhapatnam Industrial Water V. Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Circle – 5(1) Supply Company Limited Income Tax Office C/O. Gvmc, Room No. 204 Pratyakshakar Bhavan Teneti Bhavan, Asilmetta Junction Mvp Double Road Visakhapatnam – 530002 Visakhapatnam – 530017 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aabcv2240H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 43B

viii) of the Act. Section 36(1)(viii) of the Act provides the specified entity an opportunity of deduction of profit from the eligible business which is carried to a reserve account. However, it is not mandatory to claim such deduction and it cannot be considered as a pre-requisite

Visakhapatnam Industrial Water Supply Company Ltd, Visakhapatnam vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 138/VIZ/2023[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam14 Aug 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.137, 138 & 139/Viz/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08) Visakhapatnam Industrial Water V. Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Circle – 4(1) Supply Company Limited Income Tax Office C/O. Gvmc, Room No. 204 Pratyakshakar Bhavan Teneti Bhavan, Asilmetta Junction Mvp Double Road Visakhapatnam – 530002 Visakhapatnam – 530017 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aabcv2240H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No. 229/Viz/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Visakhapatnam Industrial Water V. Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Circle – 5(1) Supply Company Limited Income Tax Office C/O. Gvmc, Room No. 204 Pratyakshakar Bhavan Teneti Bhavan, Asilmetta Junction Mvp Double Road Visakhapatnam – 530002 Visakhapatnam – 530017 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aabcv2240H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 43B

viii) of the Act. Section 36(1)(viii) of the Act provides the specified entity an opportunity of deduction of profit from the eligible business which is carried to a reserve account. However, it is not mandatory to claim such deduction and it cannot be considered as a pre-requisite

Visakhapatnam Industrial Water Supply Company Ltd, Visakhapatnam vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 137/VIZ/2023[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam14 Aug 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.137, 138 & 139/Viz/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08) Visakhapatnam Industrial Water V. Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Circle – 4(1) Supply Company Limited Income Tax Office C/O. Gvmc, Room No. 204 Pratyakshakar Bhavan Teneti Bhavan, Asilmetta Junction Mvp Double Road Visakhapatnam – 530002 Visakhapatnam – 530017 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aabcv2240H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No. 229/Viz/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Visakhapatnam Industrial Water V. Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Circle – 5(1) Supply Company Limited Income Tax Office C/O. Gvmc, Room No. 204 Pratyakshakar Bhavan Teneti Bhavan, Asilmetta Junction Mvp Double Road Visakhapatnam – 530002 Visakhapatnam – 530017 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aabcv2240H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 43B

viii) of the Act. Section 36(1)(viii) of the Act provides the specified entity an opportunity of deduction of profit from the eligible business which is carried to a reserve account. However, it is not mandatory to claim such deduction and it cannot be considered as a pre-requisite

Kishan Gopal Rungta Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Jaipur

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

ITA 609/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: The Order Passed U/S 143(1) Of The Act On 12.01.2020 Ignoring That Audit Report In Form No. 10Ccb Was Filed On 22.04.2019. 2. The Appellant Craves To Alter, Amend & Modify Any Ground Of Appeal. 3. Necessary Cost Be Awarded To The Assessee.”

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehra (Addl.CIT)
Section 143(1)Section 250Section 288Section 80Section 801ASection 80I

derived by an undertaking or an enterprise from any business referred to in sub-section (4) (such business being hereinafter referred to as the eligible business), there shall, in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this section, be allowed, in computing the total income of the assessee

Pragati Power Corporation Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle 20(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 1617/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 145(2)Section 32Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37Section 43ASection 46ASection 80I

careful reading of the above provision, it is discernible that where gross total income of an assessee includes any profit and gains derived from eligible business then a deduction equivalent to 100% of the profit and gains derived from such eligible business shall be allowable as deduction u/s 80IA ... Since no separate code or method specifying the manner in which profit and gains derived from eligible business shall be computed, the provisions of the Act are to be applied in the usual manner while working out such deduction. iii) Para 4(ii) of the ICDS-I states that

Federal Bank Ltd, Kochi vs. ACIT Corp. Circle-1(1 ), Kochi

ITA 399/COCH/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Sri.Gopi, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 14ASection 36Section 36(1)(viii)

lower authorities action in making sec.36(1)(viii) disallowance of Rs.8,39,91,691 representing long term finance made available to the “eligible business” in the relevant assessment years. The tribunal’s earlier order (supra) has also dealt with the very same issue of section 36(1)(viii) deduction ... Assessee is eligible to claim deduction u/s.36(1)(vii) of the Act. The deduction is allowed at 40% of the profits derived from eligible business after reducing from such profits any deduction to be allowed u/s.36(1)(viii) of the Act. There is also no dispute with regard