Which cases are most cited on Section 80-IB(10)?

CIT v. Vandana Properties (353 ITR 36) — 88 citing judgments; PCIT v. Majestic Developers (426 ITR 175) — 9 citing judgments.

How many judgments are there on Section 80-IB(10)?

BharatTax indexes 100 ITAT, High Court and Supreme Court judgments that turn on Section 80-IB(10) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Section 80-IB(10) of the Income Tax Act

Q: What is the leading case on Section 80-IB(10) of the Income Tax Act?

CIT v. Vandana Properties (353 ITR 36) is the decision most relied on for Section 80-IB(10), cited in 88 judgments. The Bombay High Court holds that for deduction under Section 80IB(10), the minimum plot area of one acre refers to the aggregate area of the land on which housing projects are developed, not necessarily to each individual project if multiple projects are undertaken on a larger single plot. This means the deduction is allowable even if a sub-block within the overall project is less than one acre, provided the total plot size meets the minimum.

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.141

Section 80-IB(10) falls under section 80IB of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which corresponds to section 141 (Deduction in respect of profits and gains from certain industrial undertakings) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 141 of the 2025 Act

Correspondence checked against the ICAI tabular mapping of the two Acts and the BharatTax.co section commentary.

The decision most relied on for Section 80-IB(10) is CIT v. Vandana Properties (353 ITR 36), cited in 88 of the 100 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 80-IB(10)

CIT v. Vandana Properties

353 ITR 36 · 2013 · High Court

citing judgments

The Bombay High Court holds that for deduction under Section 80IB(10), the minimum plot area of one acre refers to the aggregate area of the land on which housing projects are developed, not necessarily to each individual project if multiple projects are undertaken on a larger single plot. This means the deduction is allowable even if a sub-block within the overall project is less than one acre, provided the total plot size meets the minimum.

PCIT v. Majestic Developers

426 ITR 175 · 2020 · High Court

citing judgments

Judgments on Section 80-IB(10)

D R Corporation, Surat vs. ACIT, Circle 1(2), Surat

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 265/SRT/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat01 Oct 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyanid R Corporation, बनाम/ Acit, Circle 1(2), 728 To 730, Golden Aaykar Bhawan, Vs. Plaza, Nr. Kinnary Majura Gate, Cinema, Surat - 395001 Gujarat - 395002 (Pan: Aaffd8243H) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) & D R Associates, बनाम/ Acit, Circle 1(2), 728 To 730, Golden Aaykar Bhawan, Vs. Plaza, Nr. Kinnery Majura Gate, Cinema, Surat - 395001 Gujarat – 395002 (Pan:Aaffd9981Q) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Revenue By Shri J.K. Chandnani, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 06.07.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 01.10.2026 आदेश / O R D E R Per B.M. Biyani, Am:

Section 133ASection 143(3)

D R Associates, Surat vs. ACIT, Circle 1(2), Surat

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 264/SRT/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat01 Oct 2026AY 2013-14

Section 133ASection 143(3)

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 2(4), Mumbai vs. Atul Projects India Private Limited, Mumbai

The appeal of the Department is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5219/MUM/2026[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Sept 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: AAGCA5921P

Section 80Section 80I

DCIT-12(2)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S.Guruashish Construction Private Limited, Mumbai

ITA 2512/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pawan Singh () Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: None

Section 115JSection 139(5)Section 201Section 37Section 40Section 40A(2)(a)Section 80Section 801B(10)

P V Hemalatha, Kozhikode vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Kozhikode

In the result both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 961/COCH/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 Jun 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Respondent: Shri Arun Nedumgadi

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80

P V Hemalatha, Calicut vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Kozhikode

In the result both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 960/COCH/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 Jun 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Respondent: Shri Arun Nedumgadi

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80

DCIT Circle-5, Pune, Pmt Building vs. Shah Bafna Associates, Pune

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 1410/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Jun 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1410/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Dcit, Circle-5, Pune. Vs. Shah Bafna Associates, Shop No.13 & 14, Ashwini Paradise, Lulla Nagar, Road Bibwewadi, Pune- 411037. Pan : Abrfs7793Q Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Amit Bobde Assessee By : Shri H. G. Sharma Date Of Hearing 17.03.2026 : Date Of Pronouncement 15.06.2026 : आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.03.2025 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Holding That The Assessee Was Eligible For Deduction Of Rs. 3,00,37,213/- U/S 80-1B(10) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On Pro-Rata Basis In Respect Of The Housing Project "Costa Blanca, Baner, Pune" Instead Of Confirming The Disallowance?

For Appellant: Shri H. G. SharmaFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80Section 801B(10)(a)Section 80I

Baashyam Constructions Pvt Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Central Ciecle 2(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 3849/CHNY/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 May 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri Y. Sridhar, FCA

Section 115JSection 250Section 80

The Somalwar Academy Education Societies Employees Co-Op Credit Society Mar., Nagpur vs. Income Tax Officer, War 1(5), Nagpur

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 17/NAG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur18 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri K.P. Dewani, Ld. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anand Nagrale, Ld. Sr. D.R

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 80Section 80ASection 80A(5)Section 80P

M/S. Silicon Estates, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Benglauru

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

ITA 1526/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 234BSection 250Section 80

Avinash S Sadamate, ACIT, Circle 3 3 1 Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Rashmi Infrastructure Developers Limited, Mumbai

In the result, both the Revenue's appeal and Cross

ITA 6605/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal / Jay Bhansali, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Uma Shankar Prasad, (CIT DR)

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 801B(10)Section 801B(10)(c)

Bee Gee Construction Co, Zirakpur vs. ACIT, Cir-3(1), Chandigarh

The appeal stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 599/CHANDI/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh17 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl.CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 80

Bee Gee Construction Co, Zirakpur vs. ACIT, Circle- 3(1), Chandigarh

The appeal stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 598/CHANDI/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh17 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl.CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 80

Vaishali Developers & Builders, Bhopal vs. Income Tax Officer-1(2), Bhopal

Appeal is allowed

ITA 816/IND/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore06 Jun 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M.Joshivaishali Developers & Income Tax Officer-1(2), बनाम/ Builders, Bhopal Vs. 240 Mp Nagar Zone-I, Bhopal (Pan:Aacfv7638P) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 80Section 801BSection 801B(10)Section 80I