Search: disallowance | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

Search Judgments
Browse by Bench
Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

36 results for “disallowance”+ Section 801A(7)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai226 Delhi170 Hyderabad113 Ahmedabad106 Kolkata63 Chennai50 Bangalore37 Pune36 Indore22 Jaipur20 Chandigarh18 Visakhapatnam15 Rajkot13 Nagpur11 Surat10 Patna10 Raipur8 Cuttack7 Dehradun7 Jodhpur6 Lucknow5 Guwahati4 Cochin4 Amritsar2 Calcutta1 Karnataka1

Key Topics

Section 80I83 Section 10A44 Section 143(1)32 Deduction32 Section 69B30 Section 801A26 Section 3522 Addition to Income22 Section 143(3)19 Disallowance

KOTHARI AGRITECH PRIVATE LIMITED,SOLAPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE-1, SOLAPUR

In the result, the both appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2392/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 80Section 801ASection 80ISection 80J

Showing 1–20 of 36 · Page 1 of 2

19

Section 143(2)13

Survey u/s 133A8

7) of the Act. The Appellant has submitted that it has duly filed Form 10CCB, for eligible undertaking, within the time period as prescribed in the Act and hence denial of claim owing to the same is a mistake apparent from record. Further, the Appellant submitted that the CPC has exceeded its authority in disallowing the claim under section

KOTHARI AGRITECH PVT. LTD,,SOLAPUR vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1, SOLAPUR

In the result, the both appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2455/PUN/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Sept 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 80Section 801ASection 80ISection 80J

7) of the Act. The Appellant has submitted that it has duly filed Form 10CCB, for eligible undertaking, within the time period as prescribed in the Act and hence denial of claim owing to the same is a mistake apparent from record. Further, the Appellant submitted that the CPC has exceeded its authority in disallowing the claim under section

M/S. HONEYWELL AUTOMATION INDIA LIMITED,,PUNE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-7, PUNE

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

ITA 359/PUN/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune02 Nov 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 359/Pun/2013 िनधा#रण वष# / Assessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Kamal Sawhney & Ms. Rhea AmarFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 10ASection 10A(7)Section 801ASection 80I

801A were invoked and the deduction was restricted to the aggregate margins earned by the comparable entities.' 6. The above contentions of the AO were confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) during the proceedings for AY 2007-08 wherein it was held that the key factors required for the AO to invoke its powers u/s.10A r.w s. 80IA are 'close

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. M/S. IGATE COMPUTER SYSTEM LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed and appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 299/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.74/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Capgemini Technology Services India Ltd., (In The Matter Of Erstwhile Igate Computer Systems Ltd. Formerly Known As Patni Computer Systems Ltd. & Since Amalgamated With Igate Global Solutions Ltd. & Now Name Changed To Capgemini Technology Services India Ltd.) Plot No.14, Rajiv Gandhi Infotech Park, Hinjewadi, Phase-Iii, Midc-Sez, Village Man, Taluka Mulshi, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Hinjewadi, Pune – 411057 …. Pan:Aabcp6219N Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 11, Pune आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.299/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri C.H. Naniwadekar

Section 10ASection 10A(2)Section 143(3)Section 234C

7) rws 801A(10) when in fact the assessee has earned substantial excessive profits as discussed in Assessment Order. 5. The DRP has erred in directing the Assessing Officer to delete disallowance u/s FBT paid in Australia not treating it as income tax. 6. The Hon'ble DRP erred in allowing assessee's claim u/s 40a(i) in respect

CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LTD., (FORMERLY IGATE GLOBAL SOLUTIONS LTD.,),PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed and appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 74/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.74/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Capgemini Technology Services India Ltd., (In The Matter Of Erstwhile Igate Computer Systems Ltd. Formerly Known As Patni Computer Systems Ltd. & Since Amalgamated With Igate Global Solutions Ltd. & Now Name Changed To Capgemini Technology Services India Ltd.) Plot No.14, Rajiv Gandhi Infotech Park, Hinjewadi, Phase-Iii, Midc-Sez, Village Man, Taluka Mulshi, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Hinjewadi, Pune – 411057 …. Pan:Aabcp6219N Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 11, Pune आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.299/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri C.H. Naniwadekar

Section 10ASection 10A(2)Section 143(3)Section 234C

7) rws 801A(10) when in fact the assessee has earned substantial excessive profits as discussed in Assessment Order. 5. The DRP has erred in directing the Assessing Officer to delete disallowance u/s FBT paid in Australia not treating it as income tax. 6. The Hon'ble DRP erred in allowing assessee's claim u/s 40a(i) in respect

DESAI INFRA PROJECTS (I) PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. CIT(A), PUNE-11, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands

ITA 1852/PUN/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Dec 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 143(1)Section 288Section 44ASection 801ASection 801A(7)Section 80I

801A(7), the appellant was not eligible for deduction u/s.801A(4) of the Act. Since Form 10CCB was not filed within time, therefore this situation is covered by Explanation (a)(ii) to section 143(1)(a) of the Act. Therefore, the adjustment made by the CPC falls within the provisions of section 143(1)(a) of the Act. Accordingly

M/S GIRIRAJ ENTERPRISES,PUNE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 427/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR

Section 10(35)Section 132Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

7) of section 80-IA. (Para 14] Thus, the Kalamb unit, being the only unit of the assessee eligible for deduction under section 80-IA, was to be treated as an independent unit and the same was to be treated as the only source of income for the assessee for the purpose of computing deduction under section

ASSTT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE -4 , PUNE vs. M/S PERSISTENT SYSTEMS LIMITED, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 497/PUN/2020[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jun 2021AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 497, 498 & 499/Pun/2020 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-4, Pune. .......अपीलाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

For Appellant: Shri R.D. OnkarFor Respondent: Shri Mahadevan A M Krishnan &

Section 10ASection 14ASection 35

section 14A of the Act lays down the mechanism for determining such amount of expenditure incurred in relation to exempt income in accordance with method as prescribed under Rule 8D of I T. Rules, 1962. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in deleting the disallowance u/s.10AA(9) r.w.s. 801A

ASSTT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE -1 , PUNE vs. M/S PERSISTENT SYSTEMS LIMITED , PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 499/PUN/2020[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jun 2021AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 497, 498 & 499/Pun/2020 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-4, Pune. .......अपीलाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

For Appellant: Shri R.D. OnkarFor Respondent: Shri Mahadevan A M Krishnan &

Section 10ASection 14ASection 35

section 14A of the Act lays down the mechanism for determining such amount of expenditure incurred in relation to exempt income in accordance with method as prescribed under Rule 8D of I T. Rules, 1962. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in deleting the disallowance u/s.10AA(9) r.w.s. 801A

ASSTT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE -1, PUNE vs. M/S PERSISTENT SYSTEMS LIMITED, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 498/PUN/2020[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jun 2021AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 497, 498 & 499/Pun/2020 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-4, Pune. .......अपीलाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

For Appellant: Shri R.D. OnkarFor Respondent: Shri Mahadevan A M Krishnan &

Section 10ASection 14ASection 35

section 14A of the Act lays down the mechanism for determining such amount of expenditure incurred in relation to exempt income in accordance with method as prescribed under Rule 8D of I T. Rules, 1962. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in deleting the disallowance u/s.10AA(9) r.w.s. 801A

VIJAY DEVICHAND NIBJIYA,PUNE vs. DCIT CIRCLE (5), PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is Partly Allowed

ITA 634/PUN/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.634/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23 Vijay Devichand Nibjiya, V The Dcit, Office No.304/305/306, S. Circle-(5)/A.O. D Wing, 3Rd Floor, Business Centralised Processing Court, Mukundnagar, Pune – Centre. 411037. Maharashtra. Pan: Aanpn8491R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Nikhil S Pathak – Ar Revenue By Shri Akhilesh Srivastva – Dr Date Of Hearing 19/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/07/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Add./Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)-6, Delhi Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, For The A.Y.2022-23 Dated 13.02.2025. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 801ASection 801A(4)(iv)Section 801A(7)Section 80I

section 801A(7). 3] The learned CIT(A) was not justified in relying upon the decision of Delhi Tribunal in the case of Pradeep Kumar Batra by ignoring various decisions in favour of the assessee referred to on page 6 and 7 of his order. 4] The learned CIT(A) was not justified in making this disallowance

SHAH CONSTRUCTIO,SATARA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-SATARA, SATARA

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

ITA 617/PUN/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune02 Apr 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.617/Pun/2024 धििाारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2022-23 Shah Construction, Vs Acit, Satara Parag, 286 2, Circle, Satara Budhwar Peth, Tal Karad, Dist Satara- 415110 Maharashtra Pan-Aaffs0461E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri A.D. Kulkarni

Section 119Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 156Section 250(6)Section 801Section 801ASection 80ASection 80I

disallow the claim of deduction made under section 801A and there remains pending against the appellant if the same is accepted it be held accordingly. Addition of Rs. 67,25,256/- be deleted. 5. The leamed CIT(A) has not appreciated the facts of the case and the valid documents submitted during the course of assessment proceedings

ENTRATA INDIA PVT. LTD. ,PUNE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE, 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

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

7. It is this order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 8. Ld. AR appearing from the side of the assessee submitted before us that the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) to the extent of confirming the addition of Rs.4,40,88,288/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of disallowance of expenses

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

7. It is this order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 8. Ld. AR appearing from the side of the assessee submitted before us that the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) to the extent of confirming the addition of Rs.4,40,88,288/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of disallowance of expenses

SHANKARLAL KUNDANMAL PARIK,KOLHAPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

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

ITA 400/PUN/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 May 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Respondent: Shri Milind Debaje

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 80Section 801ASection 80I

801A of the Act, when processing the return under Section 143(1) of the Act.” 5. It is this order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 6. Ld. AR appearing from the side of the assessee submitted before us that the order passed by Ld. Addl./JCIT(A), Faridabad is 4 unjustified. Ld. AR submitted before

KUMAR URBAN DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD (SUCCESSOR KUMAR HOUSING CORPORATION PVT LTD),PUNE vs. DCIT CIRCLE 14, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the

ITA 2874/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 143(2)Section 32Section 36(1)(iii)

disallowance was made in assessment year 2007-08 as industrial park was not complete as on 31.03.2007 as the completion certificate was obtained by the assessee from local authority on 09.05.2007 and also the industrial park did not fulfill the criteria of locating minimum number of 30 industrial units. The Tribunal while deciding the appeal of assessee vide para

M/S. L.B. KUNJIR,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the three appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed

ITA 417/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 115BSection 133ASection 69ASection 69BSection 80I

7. In brief, as per the assessing officer, there is no mandate u/s. 80IA to treat each wind mill project as 'separate undertaking' of the Assessee and that the Section envisages only two classifications of business i.e. 'eligible business' and 'non-eligible business'. The Assessing Officer therefore, held that the request of the Assessee to treat each Wind Mill project

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7, PUNE vs. LB KUNJIR, PUNE

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the three appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed

ITA 240/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 115BSection 133ASection 69ASection 69BSection 80I

7. In brief, as per the assessing officer, there is no mandate u/s. 80IA to treat each wind mill project as 'separate undertaking' of the Assessee and that the Section envisages only two classifications of business i.e. 'eligible business' and 'non-eligible business'. The Assessing Officer therefore, held that the request of the Assessee to treat each Wind Mill project

M/S. L.B. KUNJIR,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the three appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed

ITA 418/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 115BSection 133ASection 69ASection 69BSection 80I

7. In brief, as per the assessing officer, there is no mandate u/s. 80IA to treat each wind mill project as 'separate undertaking' of the Assessee and that the Section envisages only two classifications of business i.e. 'eligible business' and 'non-eligible business'. The Assessing Officer therefore, held that the request of the Assessee to treat each Wind Mill project

DCIT, PUNE vs. L B KUNJIR, PUNE

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the three appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1088/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 115BSection 133ASection 69ASection 69BSection 80I

7. In brief, as per the assessing officer, there is no mandate u/s. 80IA to treat each wind mill project as 'separate undertaking' of the Assessee and that the Section envisages only two classifications of business i.e. 'eligible business' and 'non-eligible business'. The Assessing Officer therefore, held that the request of the Assessee to treat each Wind Mill project