“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 Thdc India Limited, Rishikesh vs. PCIT, Dehradun

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 69/DDN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun24 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 270ASection 80

extent of Rs. 3,57,87,308 alleging certain incomes to be in the nature of other incomes not having direct nexus with the eligible business of the Appellant inter alia because- Page |2 ITA No.69/DDN/2024 2.1. The incomes are directly and inextricably linked with the power generating business ... nature of incentive to perform better and since they were directly engaged in the power generation project therefore, such interest income is derived from eligible business. Ld.AR submits that interest on fixed deposits has been allowed as part of the income derives however, the interest from employees though identical

Patel Sew Joint Venture, Telangana vs. DCIT., Circle-6(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the cross-objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 884/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 80Section 801A(4)

dispute with regard to the fact that, the assessee is in the business of development of infrastructure projects, derived profit from the eligible business of development of infrastructure projects, and claimed deduction under Section 80-IA(4) of the Act, in the return of income filed under Section

ACIT., Circle-6(1), Hyderabad vs. Patel Sew Jointventure, Hyderabad

In the result, the cross-objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 742/HYD/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Dec 2025AY 2023-24

Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 80Section 801A(4)

DCIT(CC)-8(3), Mumbai vs. Jsw Energy Limited, Mumbai

In the result the appeals filed by the revenue for assessment

ITA 2767/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 143(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (ACCOUNTANT

DCIT(CC)-8(3), Mumbai vs. Jsw Energy Limited, Mumbai

In the result the appeals filed by the revenue for assessment

ITA 2366/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 143(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (ACCOUNTANT

DCIT(CC)-8(3), Mumbai vs. Jsw Energy Limited, Mumbai

In the result the appeals filed by the revenue for assessment years under consideration stands partly allowed and cross appeals filed by the assesse stands dismissed

ITA 2365/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 143(3)

relevant provisions of Section 80IA of the Act is reproduced as under:- “8) Where any goods for services held for the purposes of the eligible business are transferred to any other business carried on by the assessee, or where any goods or services]held for the purposes of any other ... business carried on by the assessee are transferred to the eligible business and, in either case, the consideration, if any, for such transfer as recorded in the accounts of the eligible business does not correspond to the "market value of such goods "or services as on the date

Satia Industries Limited, Muktsar vs. DCIT/ACIT Circle I, Bathinda

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

ITA 702/ASR/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar16 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Kapoor, Adv. &

Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(2)Section 144C(5)Section 80Section 80GSection 80ISection 92C

Income Tax Act, 1961. Section 80-IA (8) Where any goods [or services] held for the purposes of the eligible business are transferred to any other business carried on by the assessee, or where any goods 96[or services] held for the purposes of any other business carried ... assessee are transferred to the eligible business and, in either case, the consideration, if any, for such transfer as recorded in the accounts of the eligible business does not correspond to the 97market value of such goods 96[or services] as on the date of the transfer, then

Harkrishen Singh Tuli, Chandigarh vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3), Chandigarh

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 786/CHANDI/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 784, 785 & 786/Chd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / A.Y. : 2012-13, 2017-18 & 2020-21 Shri Harkrishen Singh Tuli, Vs The Ito, #359, Sector 9-D, Ward 1(3), Chandigarh. Chandigarh. "ायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Afrpt6944G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Harkrishen Singh Tuli, Assessee Revenue By : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. Cit Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.12.2025

For Appellant: Shri Harkrishen Singh Tuli, AssesseeFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(13)Section 37Section 44ASection 56(1)

Sources" u/s 56. The claim for presumptive taxation u/s 44AD is rightly rejected. Further the activities of assessee were not in the nature of eligible business hence the invocation of 44AD by assessee was not appropriate. Hence this ground is decided against the assessee . 11. Ground No. 2: Deductibility

Harkrishen Singh Tuli, Chandigarh vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3), Chandigarh

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 785/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Harkrishen Singh Tuli, AssesseeFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(13)Section 37Section 44ASection 56(1)

Harkrishen Singh Tuli, Chandigarh vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3), Chandigarh

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 784/CHANDI/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Harkrishen Singh Tuli, AssesseeFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(13)Section 37Section 44ASection 56(1)

Vodafone West Limited, (Formerly Known As Vodafone Essar Gujarat Limited), Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-4(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 671/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri K.K. VedFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 45Section 47Section 48Section 50D

sides and perused the material on record. During the hearing, learned AR submitted that a 100% deduction of the profit and gains of the eligible business of an undertaking providing telecommunication services is provided under section 80IA(2A) of the Act. Thus, it was submitted that the restriction as provided ... undertaking providing telecommunication services, specified in clause (ii) of sub-section (4), shall be hundred per cent of the profits and gains of the eligible business for the first five assessment years commencing at any time during the periods as specified in sub-section (2) and thereafter, thirty per cent

The Dy CIT, Circle-4(1)(2), Ahmedabad vs. Vodafone West Limited, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 1634/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri K.K. VedFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 45Section 47Section 48Section 50D

Starkey Laboratories India Pvt. Ltd., Noida vs. DCIT Circle-24(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 3205/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalstarkey Laboratories Dy. Cit, India Pvt. Ltd., Circle-24(2), C-2, Sector-7, Vs. New Delhi. Gautam Buddha Nagar-201301, Uttar Pradesh. Pan-Aakcs6072R (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(1)(b)Section 37(1)Section 92C

During the year, the dealer made purchases aggregating to 250,28,171/-on MRP basis. Based on this, the eligible business incentive amounted to ₹7,54,226/-. By the end of the extended period, the dealer had achieved the prescribed purchase target. Accordingly, a provision of 7,54.226/- was created

Balaji Powertronics, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 43(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 2743/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Balaji Powertronics, Vs. Dcit, Circle-43(1), H-56, Udyog Nagar, New Delhi Main Rohtak Road, Delhi – 1100 41 Pan :Aagfb0501M (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 270ASection 80Section 928A

ground of filing of 3CEB report without any finding that the consideration at which transfers were made of goods and services of the eligible business as recorded in its accounts "does not correspond to the market values of such goods "as held by Delhi High Court In PCIT Vs Harpreet ... ground of filing of 3CEB report without any finding that the consideration at which transfers were made of goods and services of the eligible business as recorded in its accounts "does not correspond to the market values of such goods. Reliance in this regard has been placed on the decision

Intime Properties Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle 2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1226/HYD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1226/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15) Intime Properties Ltd Vs. Dy.Cit Hyderabad Circle 2(1) Pan:Aabci5676A Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Adv Madhur Agarwal & Ca Paresh Sondagar राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Ranjan Agrawala, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 19/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 26/11/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Intime Properties Ltd (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-52, Mumbai (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 30.05.2025 For The A.Y 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Adv Madhur Agarwal and CAFor Respondent: : Shri Ranjan Agrawala, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 80Section 80I

using the port facility and, therefore, the TDS wrongly deducted was directly a part of the sales receipt of the Appellant from the eligible business. The TDS refund arose to the Appellant due to the excess TDS cut by the customers against payment to be made to the Appellant ... judgement the Hon'ble Supreme Court held (a) Section 80IB provides for allowing of deduction in respect of profits and gains derived from the eligible business. The words "derived from" are narrower in connotation as compared to the words "attributable to". In other words, by using the expression "derived from

Dodla Dairy Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT Circle -8(1), Hyderabad

ITA 466/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Us:

For Appellant: Shri Aashik Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. U. Mini Chandran

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 80Section 801BSection 80J

80IA(8) of the Act, which was also applicable to the deduction allowable under Section 80IB, where any goods held for the purpose of eligible business are transferred to any other business carried on by the assessee company and the consideration for such transfer as recorded in the accounts ... eligible business does not correspond to the market value of such goods as on the date of transfer, then for the purposes of deduction u/ss. 80IB or 80IA of the Act, the profits and gains of the eligible 18 ITA TP 466/Hyd/2022 and 1301/Hyd/2024 Dodla Dairy Limited. business shall

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S American Express (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, cross appeals are partly allowed

ITA 4295/DEL/2009[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआअसं.4295/िद"ी/2009(िन.व. 2003-04) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), R. No. 390, Central Revenue Building, ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant New Delhi 110002 बनाम Vs. American Express (India) P. Ltd., First Floor, Mercantile House, 15, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi 110001 ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Pan: Aaaca-8163-F आअसं.4240/िद"ी/2009(िन.व. 2003-04) American Express (India) P. Ltd., First Floor, Mercantile House, 15, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi 110001 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aaaca-8163-F बनाम Vs. Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Central Revenue Building, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent New Delhi अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri Nishank Vashitath, Advocate "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By : Ms. Monika Singh, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 17/11/2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 26/11/2025

For Appellant: Shri Nishank Vashitath, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT(DR)

Section 10ASection 10BSection 80H

they contain both substantive as well as procedural provisions. Therefore, we need to examine what these provisions prescribe for "computation of profits of the eligible business". It is evident that section 80-IB provides for allowing of deduction in respect of profits and gains derived from the eligible business

American Express (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. JCIT, New Delhi

In the result, cross appeals are partly allowed

ITA 4240/DEL/2009[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2025AY 2003-04

For Appellant: Shri Nishank Vashitath, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT(DR)

Section 10ASection 10BSection 80H

Saini Co-Operative Tharift and Credit Society Ltd, Delhi vs. ITO Ward-48(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 4261/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Sh. V. Rajakumar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Jitender Singh, CIT-DR

Section 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. ITO Ward-48(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 4260/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Sh. V. Rajakumar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Jitender Singh, CIT-DR

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