← All Phrases

“section 80IC”

DeductionsSection 80ICSection 80IC591 judgments

The decision most relied on for section 80IC is ACB India Ltd. v. ACIT (374 ITR 108), cited in 364 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on section 80IC

ACB India Ltd. v. ACIT
374 ITR 108 · 2015 · High Court
364
citing judgments

When computing disallowance under Section 14A of the Income-tax Act using Rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules, only investments that have actually yielded exempt income during the relevant previous year are to be considered for the calculation.

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.

TM) Vishnu Jaiswal v. CIT
357 ITR 146 · 2013 · High Court
272
citing judgments

If the Assessing Officer has not conducted any investigation and thus has not discharged their burden of proof, any addition made by the AO is unsustainable and must be deleted.

CIT v. Ashwani Gupta
322 ITR 396 · 2010 · High Court
262
citing judgments

Proceedings become fatal if principles of natural justice are violated, such as when seized material is not provided to the assessee or cross-examination of a person whose statement the Assessing Officer relies upon is denied.

CIT v. Meghalaya Steels Ltd.
383 ITR 217 · 2016 · Supreme Court
203
citing judgments

Subsidies and excise duty refunds that are accounted for in the Profit and Loss account are revenue in nature, form part of business income, and are eligible for deductions under Section 80IB/80IC. Such receipts cannot be reduced from the block of assets for depreciation calculation.

Textile Machinery Corporation Ltd. v. CIT
107 ITR 195 · 1977 · Supreme Court
165
citing judgments

A new industrial undertaking is not considered a reconstruction of an existing business for tax deduction purposes if it is a separate, independent production unit manufacturing commercially tangible products that can operate without losing its identity in the old business. The transfer and substantial use of assets and manpower from an old business to a new one may indicate reconstruction.

CIT v. Contimeters Electricals (P.) Ltd.
317 ITR 249 · 2009 · High Court
140
citing judgments

The requirement to file an audit report along with the return of income under section 80-IA(7) and similar provisions is directory, not mandatory. Such a report suffices if filed at any time before the assessment is framed.

Judgments citing section 80IC

Karma Ecotech Pvt. Ltd, Delhi vs. DCIT, Cirle 13(1), New Dlhi, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7431/DEL/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2026AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Hon’Ble & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Hon’Ble

Section 119(2)Section 119(2)(b)Section 143(1)Section 80I

before the completion of assessment. Accordingly, we restore the matter to Ld. AO for limited purpose of verification of claim under the provisions of section 80IC of the Act. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 18.03.2026. [RAJ KUMAR

Grand Legacy, Dehradun vs. DCIT Circle 1, Dehradun

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 229/DDN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun12 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2018-19] Grand Legacy Vs Dcit Khasra No.384 Min/New Circle-1, No.642K, Dehra Khas Dehradun Adjoining Lal Pul Patel Uttarakhand Nagar, Dehradun Uttarakhand -248001 Pan-Aaifg4885D Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Rajan Malik & Shri A.K. Kashyap Respondent By Ms. Poonam Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 10.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 12.03.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 19.09.2025 By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), Nfac, Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Nfac/2017-18/10101141 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 26.03.2021 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 143(3A) & 143(3B) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Had Claimed Deduction U/S 80-Ic Of The Act Which Was Disallowed By The Ao For The Reason That The Assessee Has Not Fulfilled The Conditions Prescribed For Claiming Said Deduction & Initiated The Penalty Proceedings U/S 271A For Under Reporting As A Consequence Of Mis-Reporting Of Income. Thereafter, Ao Levied Penalty U/S 271A Of The Act Of Inr 67,820/- For Under Reporting By Invoking Clause (E) Of Sub-Section (9) Of Section 270A Of The Act.

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270ASection 271ASection 274Section 80Section 80I

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DEHRADUN “DB” BENCH: DEHRADUN BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT

DCIT, Circle-3(4), Mumbai vs. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for Assessment Year 2016-17

ITA 3991/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neena Jeph, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 35Section 41(1)Section 801C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT

DCIT, Circle-3(4), Mumbai vs. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for Assessment Year 2016-17

ITA 3971/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neena Jeph, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 35Section 41(1)Section 801C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT

Logics Poweramr Private Limited, Delhi vs. Asst Director of Income Tax, Bengaluru

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

ITA 6641/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2021-22 Logics Poweramr Private Vs. Asstt. Director Of Income Limited Tax, 1St Floor, Prestige Alpha No. 7, Sarswati Bhawan 1/4 Lalita Park, Laxmi Nagar 48/1, 48/2, East Delhi Laxmi Nagar Beratenaagrahara Begur, Delhi-110092 Hosur Rd. Uttarahalli Hobli, Pan No.Aadcl3204D Bangalore-560100 (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 80I

declaring a total income of Rs. Nil on 29-01-2022 after claiming a deduction of Rs.67,64,210/- under section 80IC of the Act. The assessee has paid minimum alternative Tax (MAT) under section 115JB of Rs.13,00,053/ @ 15 % of book profit including education cess @ 4% and interest ... assessee received a notice u/s 143(1) of the Act from the department regarding incorrect claim under section 80IC for carrying out adjustment. The assessee submitted the reply and uploaded the Form 10CCB on 12-10-2022 with request to condone the delay in filing in Form No.10CCB. The Assessing

ACIT, Circle 5(1), Chandigarh vs. M/S Venus Remedies Ltd., Chandigarh

The appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 742/CHANDI/2009[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Mar 2026AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.742/Chandi/2009 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Acit Circle 5(1) M/S Venus Remedies Ltd. बनाम/ Vs. Sco 40-41, Sector 17-A Sco 39, Sector – 26 Chandigarh – 160017 Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacv-6524-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant : Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal (Ca), Sh. Jaspal Sharma (Advocate)&Ms. Shruti Khandelwal (Advocate) – By Ld. Ars ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Yamini (Cit) - Ld. Dr (Virtual) सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02.02.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.03.2026 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1.1 Aforesaid Appeal For Assessment Year (Ay) 2006-07 Has Come Up For Hearing Before Us Pursuant To The Directions Of Hon’Ble Punjab & Haryana High Court In Revenue’S Appeal Ita No.81-2012 Dated 25-07-2024 Wherein Following Substantial Questions Of Law Were Determined: - 1. Weather On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Hon’Ble Itat Was Right In Upholding The Decision Of Ld. Cit(A) Who Directed The Ao To Reallocate The Expenses On Sales Ratio & To Reduce The Addition To Rs.142.24 Lacs As Against The Addition Of Rs.7,61,96,306/- On Account Of Unexplained Expenditure U/S 69C?

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal (CA), Sh. Jaspal SharmaFor Respondent: Sh. Yamini (CIT) - Ld. DR (Virtual)
Section 35(2)Section 4Section 69CSection 80I

1 Assessment Year: 2006-07 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, CHANDIGARH HYBRID HEARING BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI

ACIT, Circle-3, Gurugram, Gurgaron vs. Perfetti Van Melle Inida Private Limited, Gurgaon

In the result the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 623/DEL/2025[2010]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2026

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalacit, Circle-3 Vs. Perfetti Van Melle India 2Nd Floor, Hshdc Pvt. Limited, Building, Shankar Chowk, 47, Milestone Delhi Jaipur Gurugram, Highway Manesar Haryana – 122001 Haryana - 122051 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacp2626A Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Anmol Anand, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 263Section 80

case for A.Y. 2011-12. The only issue to be considered in this case is whether the appellant is eligible for deduction under section 80IC(2)(a) as claimed by the appellant or under section 80IC(2)(b) as held by the Assessing Officer. The provisions of section 80IC ... reproduced above. It is seen from the provisions of the two sections that it is not optional for any person to claim deduction under section 80IC(2)(al) or under section 80IC(2)(b). There are P a g e | 11 Perfetti Van Melle India Pvt. Limited (AY: 2010) separate

DCIT, Circle- 4(1)(1), Ahmedabad, Vejalpur vs. Sintex Industries Ltd, Navrangpura H.O Ahmadabad City

ITA 715/AHD/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Feb 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member), SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri S N Soparkar, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT. DR
Section 147Section 250Section 263Section 80Section 801CSection 80I

raising the following grounds: “(a) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing the assessee's claim of 100% deduction under Section 80IC despite the fact that a second substantial expansion does not entitle the unit to a fresh period of 100% deduction as per the provisions ... expansion and following the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Arham Softronics (supra) which had interpreted the provision of Section 80IC of the Act to hold that substantial expansion would entitle assessee’s to claim deduction 100% of its profit even after the expiry

Health Biotech Limited, Chandigarh vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 987/CHANDI/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: the disposal of the same.

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.A (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40

false. 9.3 An important factual aspect emerging from the record is that the assessee is an eligible industrial undertaking claiming deduction under section 80IC, and during the year under consideration, it was incurring substantial losses and was governed by the provisions of Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT). Even after the impugned

ACIT Central Circle 2(3), Ahmedabad vs. Intas Pharmaceuticals Limited, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1842/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaasst. Commissioner Of M/S. Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Vs. Income-Tax, Corporate House, S.G. Highway, Central Circle 2(3), Nr. Sola Bridge, Thaltej, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad-380 054 [Pan : Aaaci 5120 L] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant Represented By : Shri Sher Singh, Cit (Dr) Respondent Represented By: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & Ms. Urvashi Sodhan, Ar Date Of Hearing 07.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 24.02.2026 O R D E R Per Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble:-

Section 250

Assessing Officer also failed to demonstrate any specific instance where the assessee had claimed deduction in excess of its entitlement under the provisions of section 80IC, 80IE, or 10AA by reason of not allocating common costs. 74. In our considered view, while computing the profits eligible for deduction under sections

M/S. Alkraft Thermotechnologies Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, CC-1(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2011-12, 2012-

ITA 1950/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr.R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvFor Respondent: Ms.R. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 80

supra), we hold that, the UTK Unit of the assessee was engaged in production or manufacture and therefore satisfied the condition laid down in Section 80IC(2)(a) of the Act and also, the said eligible unit was not formed by splitting up or reconstruction of the business already ... existence and thus, the condition precedent in Section 80IC(4)(i) was also met. We thus are of the view that the lower authorities were unjustified in denying the benefit of deduction in respect of the profits derived by the eligible UTK unit u/s 80IC of the Act and direct

M/S. Alkraf Thermotechnologies Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, CC-1(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2011-12, 2012-

ITA 1949/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr.R. Vijayaraghavan, Adv
Section 80

supra), we hold that, the UTK Unit of the assessee was engaged in production or manufacture and therefore satisfied the condition laid down in Section 80IC(2)(a) of the Act and also, the said eligible unit was not formed by splitting up or reconstruction of the business already ... existence and thus, the condition precedent in Section 80IC(4)(i) was also met. We thus are of the view that the lower authorities were unjustified in denying the benefit of deduction in respect of the profits derived by the eligible UTK unit u/s 80IC of the Act and direct

M/S. Alkraft Thermotechnologies Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, CC-1(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2011-12, 2012-

ITA 1948/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr.R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvFor Respondent: Ms.R. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 80

supra), we hold that, the UTK Unit of the assessee was engaged in production or manufacture and therefore satisfied the condition laid down in Section 80IC(2)(a) of the Act and also, the said eligible unit was not formed by splitting up or reconstruction of the business already ... existence and thus, the condition precedent in Section 80IC(4)(i) was also met. We thus are of the view that the lower authorities were unjustified in denying the benefit of deduction in respect of the profits derived by the eligible UTK unit u/s 80IC of the Act and direct

M/S.Alkraft Thermotechnologies Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, CC-1(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2011-12, 2012-

ITA 1947/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr.R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvFor Respondent: Ms.R. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 80

supra), we hold that, the UTK Unit of the assessee was engaged in production or manufacture and therefore satisfied the condition laid down in Section 80IC(2)(a) of the Act and also, the said eligible unit was not formed by splitting up or reconstruction of the business already ... existence and thus, the condition precedent in Section 80IC(4)(i) was also met. We thus are of the view that the lower authorities were unjustified in denying the benefit of deduction in respect of the profits derived by the eligible UTK unit u/s 80IC of the Act and direct

M/S. Alkraft Thermotechnologies Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, CC-1(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2011-12, 2012-

ITA 1946/CHNY/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr.R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvFor Respondent: Ms.R. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 80

supra), we hold that, the UTK Unit of the assessee was engaged in production or manufacture and therefore satisfied the condition laid down in Section 80IC(2)(a) of the Act and also, the said eligible unit was not formed by splitting up or reconstruction of the business already ... existence and thus, the condition precedent in Section 80IC(4)(i) was also met. We thus are of the view that the lower authorities were unjustified in denying the benefit of deduction in respect of the profits derived by the eligible UTK unit u/s 80IC of the Act and direct

Chawla Auto Corporation, Rudrapur vs. A C I T Circle-2(1)(1), Haldwani

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 140/DDN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun13 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80Section 80I

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DEHRADUN “SMC” BENCH: DEHRADUN BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL

Emmbros Autocomp Limited, Baddi vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Parwanoo

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1172/CHANDI/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1172/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S Emmbros Autocomp The Acit, बनाम Limited, Village Katha, Circle, Baddi, Parwanoo Vs. Distt. Solan 173220 "थायी लेखा सं./ Pan No: Aaace3489Q अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Raman Tiwari, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Sh. Vivek Varadhan, Addl. Cit, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 09.02.2026 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.02.2026 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, Am : Appeal In This Case Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 24.09.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Exemptions [‘(Cit(A)’]

For Appellant: Sh. Raman Tiwari, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Varadhan, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 801CSection 80I

Income Tax Act, 1961 amounting to Rs. 27,85,000/ for furnishing inaccurate particulars of Income in respect of claim of deduction under section 80IC whereas the issue itself was debatable at the time of filing of return. Hence the penalty imposed on that addition may be deleted

Aromatrix Flora (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 1(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2100/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

ITA No.2100/Del/2024 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “A” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-17, Delhi vs. Havells India Ltd, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4740/DEL/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Feb 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Amitabh Shuklaassessment Year 2010-11 Dcit Vs. Havells India Ltd. 904, 9Th Floor, Kg Marg, Surya Central Circle-17 Delhi Kiran Building, New Delhi Pan No. Aaach0351E

Section 143(3)Section 80Section 801CSection 92BSection 92C

Industrial undertaking. Assessee made the submissions which were not found acceptable to AO. AO was of the view that as per the provisions of Section 80IC, deduction is available only on income derived from business activity of industrial undertaking and since interest has been derived from fixed deposits, the interest

DCIT, CC-7(2), Mumbai vs. Time Technoplast Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6858/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankarita No.6858/Mum/2025 (A.Y. 2018-19) Deputy Commissioner Of V/S. Time Technoplast Ltd., Income Tax, Central Circle – बनाम 2Nd Floor, 55, Corporate 7(2) Avenue, Saki Vihar Road, Room No. 637, Aaykar Andheri East, Mumbai – Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai 400072, Maharashtra – 400020, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaact3858L Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi,ARFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, (CIT DR)
Section 115JSection 133ASection 143(3)Section 69CSection 801CSection 80I

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL“E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER