← 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

Jm Financial Services Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT - Circle -4(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3175/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA (Accountant Member), SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 255Section 43Section 43(5)Section 73Section 73(4)

disadvantage of an assessee so as to give it a different meaning and thereby denying the assessee the set off of otherwise eligible business loss from one segment as against the other segment, especially when the activity done by the assessee is a composite activity and profit and loss

DCIT- 4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Jm Financial Services Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3144/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA (Accountant Member), SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 255Section 43Section 43(5)Section 73Section 73(4)

disadvantage of an assessee so as to give it a different meaning and thereby denying the assessee the set off of otherwise eligible business loss from one segment as against the other segment, especially when the activity done by the assessee is a composite activity and profit and loss

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Vodafone Essar Digilink Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 1158/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved & Shri Ninad PatadeFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

setting up their respective antennas and placing microwave and BTS equipments. We find that there is a direct link of such income with the eligible business of providing telecommunication services. The ld. DR likened such hire charges to the earning of rental income from letting out property and contended that ... income since in terms of non-obstinate clause used in Section 80IA(2A), deduction for telecommunication services is available in respect of “profits of eligible business” and is not restricted to “profits derived from eligible business” as mentioned in Section 80IA(1) of the Act. The relevant extract

Vodafone Digilink Limited, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, New Delhi

ITA 1073/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2025AY 2010-11
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

setting up their respective antennas and placing microwave and BTS equipments. We find that there is a direct link of such income with the eligible business of providing telecommunication services. The ld. DR likened such hire charges to the earning of rental income from letting out property and contended that ... income since in terms of non-obstante clause used in Section 80IA(2A), deduction for telecommunication services is available in respect of “profits of eligible business” and is not restricted to “profits derived from eligible business” as mentioned in Section 80IA(1) of the Act. The relevant extract

Nirmal Kumar Dugar, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(1) Jaipur, Jaipur

Appeal is allowed

ITA 130/JPR/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Oct 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: This Appellate Tribunal.

For Appellant: Sh. Sauravh Harsh, Adv., Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT, Ld. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 43(5)Section 44A

trading turnover during the relevant period? 8. It is significant to note that in section 44AD, to be covered by the definition of ‘eligible business’, w.e.f. 1.4.2017 words “2 crore rupees” were substituted in place of “one crore rupees”. But, earlier i.e. prior to 1.4.2017, 8 Nirmal Kumar Dugar, Jaipur

ACIT (Cir.) - 6(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Bhandar Power Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1908/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14 Assistant Commissioner Of Bhandar Power Ltd. Income Tax, 14Th Floor, Essar House, Circle 6(1)(2), 11, K. K. Marg, Mahalaxmi, Vs. Mumbai Mumbai - 400034 (Pan: Aaacb6693B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Vijay Mehta, Fca & Shri Tarang Mehta, Advocate Revenue : Shri Satyaprakash R. Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.10.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), Delhi, Vide Order Dated 25.01.2018 Passed Against The Assessment Order By Ito 6(1)(4), Mumbai, U/S. 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 20.12.2016, For Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Grounds Taken By The Revenue Are Reproduced As Under: 1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Cit(A) Is Not Justified In Deleting The Disallowance Of Deduction U/S 80Ia Of The Income Tax Act Of Rs. 203,13,43,740/-Without Considering The Fact That The Provisions Of Section 801A(10) Is Clearly Attracted In This Case Hence The Assessee Is Not Eligible For Claiming Deduction U/S 801A Of The Income Tax Act.

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, FCA and Shri Tarang Mehta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Satyaprakash R. Singh, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 801ASection 801A(10)Section 80I

which ld. Assessing Officer can determine the reasonable profit when it appears to him that owing to close connection between the assessee carrying on eligible business and any other person, the arrangement so made in the course of business is such that assessee earns more than ordinary profits. 4. Brief ... deduction u/s.80IA. 5.2. Ld. Assessing Officer, further, observed that deduction available u/s.80IA is in respect of profits and gains derived by undertaking from any eligible business, as specified in section 80IA(4). According to him, deduction is available on the income derived from generation of power and it cannot

Gandhi Special Tubes Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT- Circle 5(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 2421/MUM/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang, Hon’Ble & Ms. Padmavathy S, Hon’Blegandhi Special Tubes Limited, Asst. Cit Circle 5(1)(1), 201-204, 2Nd Floor Plaza 55, Mumbai. Vs. Hughes Road, Next To Dharam Palace, Mumbai 400 007. Pan Aaacg1261C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: S/Shri Chaitanya D Joshi & Saurav SuranaFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary-Sr AR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 80I

dispute that the assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 80IA for the relevant assessment year in respect of the eligible business. The only issue is with regard to the quantum of profit and gains of the eligible business and the resultant deduction as is permissible under Section 80IA

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle - 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Small Industries Development Bank of India, Mumbai

ITA 3173/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

computation has claimed deduction under section 36(1)(viii) to the extent of the least of 20% of profits derived from the eligible business and the amount transferred to the special reserve amounting to Rs.80,00,00,000. The AO during the course of assessment proceedings re-worked the claim ... held that the AO is not correct in reducing the deduction claimed under section 36(1)(viia)(c) while reworking the profit from the eligible business to allow deduction under section 36(1)(viii). In this regard the CIT(A) placed reliance on the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle - 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Small Industries Development Bank of India, Mumbai

ITA 3160/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

computation has claimed deduction under section 36(1)(viii) to the extent of the least of 20% of profits derived from the eligible business and the amount transferred to the special reserve amounting to Rs.80,00,00,000. The AO during the course of assessment proceedings re-worked the claim ... held that the AO is not correct in reducing the deduction claimed under section 36(1)(viia)(c) while reworking the profit from the eligible business to allow deduction under section 36(1)(viii). In this regard the CIT(A) placed reliance on the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench

Small Industries Development Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 3(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 2971/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Assessee by
Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

computation has claimed deduction under section 36(1)(viii) to the extent of the least of 20% of profits derived from the eligible business and the amount transferred to the special reserve amounting to Rs.80,00,00,000. The AO during the course of assessment proceedings re-worked the claim ... held that the AO is not correct in reducing the deduction claimed under section 36(1)(viia)(c) while reworking the profit from the eligible business to allow deduction under section 36(1)(viii). In this regard the CIT(A) placed reliance on the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench

Small Industries Development Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 3(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 2970/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

computation has claimed deduction under section 36(1)(viii) to the extent of the least of 20% of profits derived from the eligible business and the amount transferred to the special reserve amounting to Rs.80,00,00,000. The AO during the course of assessment proceedings re-worked the claim ... held that the AO is not correct in reducing the deduction claimed under section 36(1)(viia)(c) while reworking the profit from the eligible business to allow deduction under section 36(1)(viii). In this regard the CIT(A) placed reliance on the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle - 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Small Industries Development Bank of India, Mumbai

ITA 2943/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

computation has claimed deduction under section 36(1)(viii) to the extent of the least of 20% of profits derived from the eligible business and the amount transferred to the special reserve amounting to Rs.80,00,00,000. The AO during the course of assessment proceedings re-worked the claim ... held that the AO is not correct in reducing the deduction claimed under section 36(1)(viia)(c) while reworking the profit from the eligible business to allow deduction under section 36(1)(viii). In this regard the CIT(A) placed reliance on the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle - 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Small Industries Development Bank of India, Mumbai

ITA 2894/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

computation has claimed deduction under section 36(1)(viii) to the extent of the least of 20% of profits derived from the eligible business and the amount transferred to the special reserve amounting to Rs.80,00,00,000. The AO during the course of assessment proceedings re-worked the claim ... held that the AO is not correct in reducing the deduction claimed under section 36(1)(viia)(c) while reworking the profit from the eligible business to allow deduction under section 36(1)(viii). In this regard the CIT(A) placed reliance on the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle - 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Small Industries Development Bank of India, Mumbai

ITA 2893/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

computation has claimed deduction under section 36(1)(viii) to the extent of the least of 20% of profits derived from the eligible business and the amount transferred to the special reserve amounting to Rs.80,00,00,000. The AO during the course of assessment proceedings re-worked the claim ... held that the AO is not correct in reducing the deduction claimed under section 36(1)(viia)(c) while reworking the profit from the eligible business to allow deduction under section 36(1)(viii). In this regard the CIT(A) placed reliance on the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench

Vitp Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle8(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 574/HYD/2024[AY 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Oct 2025

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood (Judicial Member), Shri Madhusudan Sawdia (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Advocates Percy Perdiwala and Mahima GoudFor Respondent: : Shri Shahnawaz-ul-Rahman
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263Section 43(6)Section 80I

that the 'total income' of an assessee is computed by taking into account the allowable deduction of the profits and gains derived from the 'eligible business'. With respect to the facts of this Appeal, there is no dispute that the deduction quantified under section ... make it clear, the said amount represents the net profit made by the Assessee from the 'eligible business' covered under sub-section (4), i.e., from the Assessee's business unit involved in generation of power. The claim of the Assessee is that in computing its 'total income', deductions available

Vitp Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle8(1), Hyderabad

ITA 573/HYD/2024[AY 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Oct 2025

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.573 & 574/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Vitp Private Limited Vs. Dy. Cit Hyderabad Circle 8 (1) Pan:Aaccv2672G Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धारिती द्वारा / Assessee By: Advocates Percy Perdiwala & Mahima Goud राजस्व द्वारा / Revenue By:: Shri Shahnawaz-Ul-Rahman, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 23/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Pronouncement: 08/10/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: These Two Appeals Are Filed By Vitp Private Limited (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-2, Hyderabad, (“Ld.Pcit”), Dated 30/03/2024 For The A.Y.2017-18. As Both The Appeals Are Interrelated & Belongs To The Same, Both Are Heard Together & One Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Brevity.

For Appellant: Advocates Percy Perdiwala andFor Respondent: : Shri Shahnawaz-ul-Rahman
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(3)Section 263Section 80Section 801A

aggregating to Rs 15,96, 77,696/- which was claimed and allowed as deduction u/s 80IA. The deduction u/s 801A should be claimed against eligible business income of Rs 7,42,25,071/- only and the claim of deduction against short term capital gain and income from other sources aggregating ... certain incomes", where, in the case of an assessee, any amount of profits and gains of an undertaking or unit or enterprise or eligible business is claimed and allowed as a deduction under any of those provisions for any assessment year, deduction in respect of, and to the extent

Garje Rudrappa Jayanna, Mandya vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Mandya

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1079/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate, Standing Counsel for Revenue
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 271F

from the business carried out by the assessee. Since from the provision of section 44AD of the Act, assessee is not covered under the eligible business and eligible assessee. Therefore, computation made by the assessee is also not correct. During the course of assessment proceedings as well as appellate proceedings

Garje Rudrappa Jayanna, Mandya vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Mandya

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1078/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate, Standing Counsel for Revenue
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 271F

from the business carried out by the assessee. Since from the provision of section 44AD of the Act, assessee is not covered under the eligible business and eligible assessee. Therefore, computation made by the assessee is also not correct. During the course of assessment proceedings as well as appellate proceedings

Saurashtra Gramin Bank Manager (F & A), Rajkot vs. The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Rajkot

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 37/RJT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 37/Rjt/2022 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Saurashtra Gramin Bank Vs. The Pr. Cit-1, Manager (F & A), Rajkot 1St Floor Wing 2, Lic Jeevan Prakash Building, Tagore Road, Rajkot-360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aahas2116H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. A.D. Vyas, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 36(1)(viii)Section 37(1)

respect of any special reserve created and maintained by a specified entity, an amount not exceeding twenty per cent of the profits derived from eligible business computed under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession" (before making any deduction under this clause) carried to such reserve account” Calculation

Anil Radheshyam Sharma, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 2(3)(1), Surat

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

ITA 888/SRT/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.888/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2011-12 (Hybrid Hearing) Anil Radheshyam Sharma, Income Tax Officer, Ward – बनाम/ 73, Shyamal Dham Row 2(3)(1), Surat Vs. House, Godadara, Surat – 395 012 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Bdhps8135D (""थ"/Respondent) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant)

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 44A

file the return voluntarily and did not maintain books of account. However, u/s 44AD of the Act, an assessee engaged in an eligible business is not required to maintain books of account u/s 44AA or get them audited under section 44AB, provided income is declared at the presumptive rate