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)

Prestige Estate Projects Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and

ITA 845/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 May 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Sibichan K Mathew, CIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 24

I.T.O. 10(1)(4), Mumbai vs. Krishna Kumar Pittie, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 8403/MUM/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2016AY 2004-05

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Kothari/Sh.Ajit ShettyFor Respondent: Ms. Vinito Menon/Sh. Sumit Kumar

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 346Section 80Section 80I

DCIT Cen Cir 6, Mumbai vs. Chembur Trading Corporation, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 4275/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4275/Mum/14 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Dy. Commissioner Of Income M/S. Chembur Trading बनाम/ Tax Central Circle 6 Corporation Vs. Old Cgo Bldg. Annexe, Plot No.219, Laalasis, 9Th Floor, M.K.Road, 11Th Road, Chembur, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400071 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadfc2722Q

For Appellant: Shri J. P. BairagraFor Respondent: Shri Akhilendra P. Yadav

Section 80

DCIT, Circle - 11, Kolkata vs. M/S. Bengal Greenfield Housing Development Co. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1413/KOL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Feb 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] Assessment Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate

Section 10(20)Section 80Section 80I

Kamala Brothers, Mumbai vs. ITO 24(2)1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed, and assessee’s appeal as well as and CO filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1160/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2003-04 Kamala Brothers, Ito 24(2)(1) Kuber Chamber, Cts बनाम/ C-13 Bandra Kurla 141-A, Next To Cod, Complex, Bandra(E) Vs. Dutt Mandir Road, Mumbai Malad (E) Mumbai -400097 (Assessee) (Revenue) P.A. No.Aaafk0111D Assessment Year: 2003-04 Ito 24(2)(1) Kamala Brothers, C-13 Bandra Kurla Kuber Chamber, Cts 141- बनाम/ Complex, Bandra(E) A, Next To Cod, Dutt Vs. Mumbai Mandir Road, Malad (E) Mumbai -400097 (Revenue) (Respondent) P.A. No. Aaafk0111D C.O. No.180/Mum/2013 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1334/Mum/2011) Assessment Year: 2003-04

Section 143(3)Section 2(47)Section 50C

Kamala Brothers, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 24(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed, and assessee’s appeal as well as and CO filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1140/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2016AY 2006-07

Section 143(3)Section 2(47)Section 50C

Kamala Brothers, Mumbai vs. ITO 24(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed, and assessee’s appeal as well as and CO filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1139/MUM/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2016AY 2003-04

Section 143(3)Section 2(47)Section 50C

ITO WD 1(2), Kalyan vs. Kantilal Dhanraj Jain (HUF), Bhiwandi

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 2743/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2743/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Income Tax Officer, Kantilal Dhanraj Jain (Huf) बनाम/ Ward 1(2), Kalyan, 1St Floor, H. No. 64/2, 1St Floor, Mohan Plaza, Wayale Nagar, Malani Bhuwan, Prabhu Ali, Vs. Khadakpada, Kalyan Mandai, Bhiwandi – 421 302 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aabhj 8351 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri B. S. Bist ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Sejal Lalit Jain सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 16.11.2015 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 27.11.2015 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: This Is An Appeal By The Revenue Arising Out Of The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Thane (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 16.01.2014, Partly Allowing The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting Its Assessment U/S.143(3) R/W S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2006-07 Vide Order Dated 30.12.2010. 2. The Only Issue Arising Per The Instant Appeal Is The Validity Of The Deletion Of The Disallowance Of The Assessee’S, A Huf In The Business Of Property Development, Claim

For Appellant: Shri B. S. BistFor Respondent: Ms. Sejal Lalit Jain

Section 143(3)Section 80

ACIT vs. M/S Prasanna Developers

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1016/BANG/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 May 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Jason P.Boazasst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 2(1), Bangalore. … Appellant Vs. M/S.Prasanna Developers, City Point, Kodaialbail, Mangalore. … Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nambirajan Pillai, JCIT(DR)For Respondent: Mrs.Sheetal Borkar, Advocate

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 80

Commissioner of Income Tax-19 Mumbai vs. M/S. Sarkar Builders

CIVIL APPEAL No. 4476/2015Supreme Court15 May 2015

Bench: 31.03.2005 But Completed On Or After 01.04.2005 - Held: This Amendment Is Prospective & Has Come Into Effect E From 1. 4. 2005, Therefore, The Restriction On Extent Of Commercial Area In Housing Project Imposed W.E.F. 1.4.2005 Would Not Apply To Housing Projects Which Had Been Sanctioned & Started Earlier Even If They Finished After 1.4.2005. F Dismissing The Appeals, The Court Held: 1. Prior To 01.04.2005, The Developers/ Assessees Who Had Got Their Projects Sanctioned From G The Local Authorities As 'Housing Projects', Even With Commercial User, Though Limited To The Extent Permitted Under The Dc Rules, Were Convinced That They Would Be Getting The Benefit Of 100% Deduction Of Their Income From Such Projects Under Section 8018 Of The Act. Their H Projects Were Sanctioned Much Before 01.04.2005. As 56

Section 801

Narayana Builders vs. ITO

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

ITA 474/BANG/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Mar 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Jason P.Boazstay Petn. No.77/Bang/2013 (In Ita No.474/Bang/2013) (Assessment Year: 2009-10) & M/S.Narayan Builders, No.101/104, 1St Floor, Seshadripuram, Bangalore-560020 … Appellant Pan: Aaffn 3285 R Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward 6(3), Bangalore. … Respondent Appellant By: Shri Sham R.Chakravarthi, Ca. Respondent By: Shri P.Dhivahar, Jcit (Dr). Date Of Hearing : 18/03/2015. Date Of Pronouncement: 31/03/2015. O R D E R Per Smt.P.Madhavi Devi, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Sham R.Chakravarthi, CAFor Respondent: Shri P.Dhivahar, JCIT (DR)

Section 112Section 143(3)Section 147Section 80Section 80I

M/S Anriya Project Management Services P. Ltd vs. DCIT

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1799/BANG/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Feb 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Jason P.Boazm/S.Anriya Project Management Services(P)Ltd. No.164, 1St Cross, 1St Stage, Aecs Layout, Sanjaynagar, Rmv Ii Stage, Bangalore560058. … Appellant Pan: Aaeca 3362 L Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 11(1), Bangalore. … Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr.K.Shankar Prasad, CIT(DR)

Section 10ASection 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 14ASection 80Section 80A