BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

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.

329 results for “TDS”+ Section 801Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi79Mumbai54Hyderabad54Kolkata30Ahmedabad25Bangalore18Indore13Visakhapatnam12Cuttack7Chennai7Jaipur6Patna6Rajkot5Nagpur3Pune3Raipur2Lucknow2Chandigarh2Calcutta1

Key Topics

Section 80I185Section 143(3)88Deduction73Disallowance69Addition to Income65Section 8052Section 14A47Section 14734Section 801A32Section 801A(4)23

DCIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. PATEL ENGINEERING LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objection of the Assessee is allowed in part in terms indicated herein above

ITA 3643/MUM/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ashwani Taneja

For Appellant: Shri Mayur KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Smt Vidisha Kalra
Section 143(3)Section 801A(4)Section 80I

Section 801A profits of each infrastructure facility and calculated the profits and gains derived therefrom after deducting HO expenses based on which the claim of deduction u/s.801A(4) of Rs.23,34,38,1031- was made. As per the AO the Panvel CO No.37/Mum/2017 (A.Y.2005-06) M/s Patel Engineering Ltd. workshop and the USA office expenses has to be allocated to 801A

ACIT., CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD vs. NCC HES JV, HYDERABAD

Showing 1–20 of 329 · Page 1 of 17

...
Section 115J22
TDS21
ITA 682/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Feb 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri S. Ramarao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. M. Narmada, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80I

TDS details, which the assessee duly furnished. After reviewing the submitted details, a show cause notice, dated 20.12.2019, was issued, requiring the assessee to explain why the deduction u/s 80IA should not be disallowed. Thereafter, assessee furnished his reply. After verification of the submissions made by the assessee, Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act dt.30.12.2019

ACIT., CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD vs. NCC HES JV, MADHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 688/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramarao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. M. Narmada, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80I

TDS details, which the assessee duly furnished. After reviewing the submitted details, a show cause notice, dated 20.12.2019, was issued, requiring the assessee to explain why the deduction u/s 80IA should not be disallowed. Thereafter, assessee furnished his reply. After verification of the submissions made by the assessee, Assessing Officer completed the assessment

ITO, WD-33(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S SIMPLEX SUBHASH JV, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 390/KOL/2016[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Dec 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Us The Ld.Ar Of The Assessee Submits That The Issue In Hand Regarding Claim Of Deduction U/S. 80Ia Of The Act Is Covered By The Consolidated Order Dt:18-06-2013 Of The Kolkata Tribunal, ‘B‘ Bench, Kolkata In Assessee’S Own Case In Ita No. 1684/Kol/2011 & Ita No. 1685/Kol/2011 For The A.Y 2007-08. The Ld. Ar Also Submits That The 1 M/S. Simplex Subhash J.V

For Appellant: Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. CIT –DRFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, FCA
Section 143(2)Section 801ASection 80I

801A of the Act, a person being a company has to enter into an agreement with the Government or Government undertakings. Such an agreement is a contract and for the purpose of the agreement a person may be called as a contractor as he entered into a contract. But the word “contractor” is used .to denote a person entering into

ACIT, CIR-33, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S SIMPLEX SOMDATT BUILDERS JV, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 691/KOL/2016[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Dec 2017AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year:2012-13 Acit, Circle-33, M/S Simplex Somdatt बनाम 10B, Middleton Row, Builders, Simplex House, / 3Rd Floor, Kolkata-71 27, Shkespeare Sarani, V/S. Kokata-17 [Pan No.Aagas 1619 G] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. Cit-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 24-10-2017 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 06-12-2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-9, Kolkata Dated 29.01.2016. Assessment Was Framed By Dcit, Circle-33 Kolkata U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 23.12.2014 For Assessment Year 2012-13. The Grounds Raised By The Revenue Per Its Appeal Are As Under:- “1) In The Fact & Circumstance Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A)-9, Kolkata Has Erred In Allowing The Deduction Of Rs.82,56,250/- U/S 80Ia 2) In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A)-9,Kolkata Has Erred In Treating The Assessee As Developer Not Contractor. 3) The Ld. Cit(A)-9, Kolkata Has Erred In Not Adhering To The Explanation To Section 80Ia (Introduced By The Finance Act, 2007). 4) The Depart Craves Leave To Add, Alter Or Amend An Ground Of Grounds Before Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

Section 143(3)Section 80Section 80I

TDS credit of the amounts deducted by the project authority and thereby he held that the assessee is not a developer and is a works contractor. Now we may refer to the consolidated order dt:18-06-2013 of the Co- ordinate Bench in identical case supra, wherein it considered the order of ITAT Hyderabad in the case

ACIT, CIR-33, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S SIMPLEX MEINHARDT JOINT VENTURE, KOLKATA

In the result, both the above appeals of revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 693/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Apr 2017AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 143(2)Section 80I

801A of the Act, a person being a company has to enter into an agreement with the Government or Government undertakings. Such an agreement is a contract and for the purpose of the agreement a person may be called as a contractor as he entered into a contract. But the word “contractor” is used .to denote a person entering into

ACIT, CIR-33, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S SIMPLEX SOMDATT BUILDERS JV, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 690/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Apr 2017AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 143(2)Section 80I

801A of the Act, a person being a company has to enter into an agreement with the Government or Government undertakings. Such an agreement is a contract and for the purpose of the agreement a person may be called as a contractor as he entered into a contract. But the word “contractor” is used .to denote a person entering into

SIMPLEX KRITA JV,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-33(1), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 181/KOL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2016-17 Simplex Krita Jv Ito, Ward-33(1), Kolkata Simplex House, 27, Shakespeare Vs Sarani, Kolkata-700017. Pan: Aalas 5699 F (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate Respondent By : Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.05.2023 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: This Appeal In Ita No. 181/Kol/2023 For A.Y. 2016-17 Is Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) [Ld. Cit In Short], Dated 25.01.2023. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT, DR
Section 80Section 80I

TDS credit of the amounts deducted by the project authority and thereby he held that the assessee is not a developer and is a works contractor. Now we may refer to the consolidated order dt:18-06-2013 of the Coordinate Bench in identical case supra, wherein it considered the order of ITAT Hyderabad in the case of M/s. GVPR

ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. M/S KMC CONSTRUCTIONS LTD, HYDERABAD

ITA 731/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Section 801A(4), the enterprise should be owned by a company registered in India or by a consortium of such companies. Further, Clause (a) makes it clear that a company registered in India, or a consortium of such company registered in India should be owned the undertaking and Clause (b) states that such entity should be entered into agreement with

ASTT. COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW vs. M/S APCO INFRATECH PVT. LTD., LUCKNOW

In the result, appeal of the Revenue and Cross Objection of the assessee are dismissed, as indicated above

ITA 66/LKW/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow05 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G. D. Padamahshali & Shri Subhash Malguriaassessment Year: 2014-15 The Asstt. Commissioner V. M/S Apco Infratech Pvt. Ltd Of Income Tax B-9, Vibhuti Khand Central Circle Ii Gomti Nagar Lucnow Lucknow Pan:Aadca5639H (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.19/Lkw/2017 [In Ita No.66/Lkw/2017] Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Apco Infratech Pvt. Ltd V. The Asstt. Commissioner Of B-9, Vibhuti Khand Income Tax Gomti Nagar Central Circle Ii Lucknow Lucnow Pan:Aadca5639H (Cross Objector) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Kumar Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Neil Jain, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 194Section 80Section 80I

801A. From the above Para of this tribunal order, it comes out that if the contracts involves design, development, operating & maintenance, financial involvement and defect correction and liability period, then such contracts cannot be called as simple works contract to deny the deduction under s. 80IA and profit from the contracts which involves design, development, operating & maintenance, financial involvement

DCIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. NAVKAR CORPORATION LIMITED, NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, we affirm the order of the Ld

ITA 1846/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 32Section 80Section 801ASection 801A(4)(i)Section 801A(5)Section 801A(8)Section 80I

Section 80IA and after incorporating the balance sheet and profit and loss account, ld. AO noted that the expenses apportioned between eligible and non-eligible unit is @65.88% and 34.11% respectively in the following manner:- Total expenses claimed as per the consolidated P&L account on record lac(100%) Rs.30,274.26 Expenses apportioned to the eligible unit (65.88%) Rs.19

M/S. SHREE BALAJI ENGICONS PVT. LTD.,BELPAHAR, JHARSUGUDA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), SAMBALPUR, SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeals of the assesee in IT(SS)A No

ITA 89/CTK/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack07 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalit(Ss)A No.77/Ctk/2023

Section 153ASection 194CSection 80Section 801A

801A of the Act in respect of Sagar-Beena Project is that the assessee did not satisfy the conditions laid down under section 80IA(4)(b) of the Act. The objection of the CIT(A) is that there is nothing to suggest on record that the assessee had entered into any agreement with the Central Government or a State Government

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR, SAMBALPUR vs. M/S. SHREE BALAJI ENGICONS PVT. LTD., JHARSUGUDA

In the result, appeals of the assesee in IT(SS)A No

ITA 141/CTK/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack07 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalit(Ss)A No.77/Ctk/2023

Section 153ASection 194CSection 80Section 801A

801A of the Act in respect of Sagar-Beena Project is that the assessee did not satisfy the conditions laid down under section 80IA(4)(b) of the Act. The objection of the CIT(A) is that there is nothing to suggest on record that the assessee had entered into any agreement with the Central Government or a State Government

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR, SAMBALPUR vs. M/S. SHREE BALAJI ENGICONS PVT. LTD., JHARSUGUDA

In the result, appeals of the assesee in IT(SS)A No

ITA 142/CTK/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack07 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalit(Ss)A No.77/Ctk/2023

Section 153ASection 194CSection 80Section 801A

801A of the Act in respect of Sagar-Beena Project is that the assessee did not satisfy the conditions laid down under section 80IA(4)(b) of the Act. The objection of the CIT(A) is that there is nothing to suggest on record that the assessee had entered into any agreement with the Central Government or a State Government

M/S. SHREE BALAJI ENGICONS PVT. LTD.,BELPAHAR, JHARSUGUDA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), SAMBALPUR, SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeals of the assesee in IT(SS)A No

ITA 88/CTK/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack07 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalit(Ss)A No.77/Ctk/2023

Section 153ASection 194CSection 80Section 801A

801A of the Act in respect of Sagar-Beena Project is that the assessee did not satisfy the conditions laid down under section 80IA(4)(b) of the Act. The objection of the CIT(A) is that there is nothing to suggest on record that the assessee had entered into any agreement with the Central Government or a State Government

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR, SAMBALPUR vs. M/S. SHREE BALAJI ENGICONS PVT. LTD., JHARSUGUDA

In the result, appeals of the assesee in IT(SS)A No

ITA 13/CTK/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack07 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalit(Ss)A No.77/Ctk/2023

Section 153ASection 194CSection 80Section 801A

801A of the Act in respect of Sagar-Beena Project is that the assessee did not satisfy the conditions laid down under section 80IA(4)(b) of the Act. The objection of the CIT(A) is that there is nothing to suggest on record that the assessee had entered into any agreement with the Central Government or a State Government

ASST. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, SAMBALPUR vs. SHREE BALAJI ENGICON LIMITED, BELPAHAR RS

In the result, appeals of the assesee in IT(SS)A No

ITA 320/CTK/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack07 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalit(Ss)A No.77/Ctk/2023

Section 153ASection 194CSection 80Section 801A

801A of the Act in respect of Sagar-Beena Project is that the assessee did not satisfy the conditions laid down under section 80IA(4)(b) of the Act. The objection of the CIT(A) is that there is nothing to suggest on record that the assessee had entered into any agreement with the Central Government or a State Government

M/S. SHREE BAALAJI ENGICONS LIMITED,JHARSUGUDA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeals of the assesee in IT(SS)A No

ITA 296/CTK/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack07 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalit(Ss)A No.77/Ctk/2023

Section 153ASection 194CSection 80Section 801A

801A of the Act in respect of Sagar-Beena Project is that the assessee did not satisfy the conditions laid down under section 80IA(4)(b) of the Act. The objection of the CIT(A) is that there is nothing to suggest on record that the assessee had entered into any agreement with the Central Government or a State Government

TRANSTROY INDIA LTD.,,HYDERABAD vs. THE ACIT,, GUNTUR

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed for A

ITA 193/VIZ/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam19 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.162 & 163/Viz/2015, 470/Viz/2016, 509/Viz/2017 & 193/Viz/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2009-10, 2011-12 To 2014-15 Respectively) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Transstroy (India) Ltd. Income Tax Guntur Circle-2(1) Guntur [Pan : Aabct4226B] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.193/Viz/2015, 430/Viz/2016, 529/Viz/2017 & 248/Viz/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Years:2011-12 To 2014-15 Respectively) M/S Transstroy (India) Ltd. Asst.Commissioner Of Guntur Income Tax Circle-2(1) [Pan : Aabct4226B] Guntur (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Dr निर्धाऩरती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri T.Chaitanya Kumar, Ar सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 07.06.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19.07.2019

For Appellant: Shri T.Chaitanya Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Sonowal, DR
Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)Section 80I

801A(4) of the I.T. Act though the appellant satisfied all the conditions mentioned in the said section. 4. The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) ought to have seen that the works involved are development of infrastructure facilities done S.P.V and satisfied all the conditions mentioned 8. During the appeal hearing, the Ld.DR argued that as per the provisions

THE ACIT, GUNTUR vs. M/S TRANSSTROY (INDIA) LTD.,, GUNTUR

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed for A

ITA 163/VIZ/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam19 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.162 & 163/Viz/2015, 470/Viz/2016, 509/Viz/2017 & 193/Viz/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2009-10, 2011-12 To 2014-15 Respectively) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Transstroy (India) Ltd. Income Tax Guntur Circle-2(1) Guntur [Pan : Aabct4226B] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.193/Viz/2015, 430/Viz/2016, 529/Viz/2017 & 248/Viz/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Years:2011-12 To 2014-15 Respectively) M/S Transstroy (India) Ltd. Asst.Commissioner Of Guntur Income Tax Circle-2(1) [Pan : Aabct4226B] Guntur (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Dr निर्धाऩरती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri T.Chaitanya Kumar, Ar सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 07.06.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19.07.2019

For Appellant: Shri T.Chaitanya Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Sonowal, DR
Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)Section 80I

801A(4) of the I.T. Act though the appellant satisfied all the conditions mentioned in the said section. 4. The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) ought to have seen that the works involved are development of infrastructure facilities done S.P.V and satisfied all the conditions mentioned 8. During the appeal hearing, the Ld.DR argued that as per the provisions