Section 80-IB of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.141

Section 80-IB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 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 is CIT v. Sesa Goa Ltd. (271 ITR 331), cited in 92 of the 340 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 80-IB

CIT v. Sesa Goa Ltd.
271 ITR 331 · 2004 · Supreme Court
92
citing judgments

Extraction and processing of iron ore constitutes "production" for the purpose of claiming tax benefits like investment allowance under Section 32A and additional depreciation under Section 32(1)(iia), even if it does not amount to "manufacture".

Girilal & Co. v. S.L. Meena, ITO
300 ITR 432 · 2008 · High Court
32
citing judgments

Reassessment proceedings after four years are valid when the assessee fails to disclose primary facts or keeps relevant material from the Assessing Officer. This applies when information was available in annexures and Explanation 2(c)(iv) to Section 147 is invoked.

10B in Pr. CIT v. Wipro Ltd.
288 Taxmann 491 · 2022 · Supreme Court
22
citing judgments
Aman Marble Industries (P.) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise
1 SCC 279 · 2005 · Supreme Court
18
citing judgments

The case clarified that activities like cutting marble blocks into slabs can constitute 'manufacture' for excise purposes, a principle relevant to understanding 'production' under Section 80-IA of the Income Tax Act, even if the earlier judgment did not explicitly interpret 'production'.

CIT v. G. M Knitting
12 SCC 272 · 2016 · Reported
13
citing judgments

An assessee is entitled to claim deduction under section 80-IB even if the certificate in Form 10CCB was not filed along with the return of income, provided it is filed before the final order of assessment is made.

Legato Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT (
189 Taxmann 21 · 2010 · High Court
13
citing judgments
Department. 19. In CIT v. Sesa Goa Ltd.
13 SCC 548 · 2004 · Reported
10
citing judgments

The extraction and processing of iron ore, even if not amounting to the manufacture or production of an article or thing, can constitute 'production' for the purposes of claiming deductions under Section 80-IA and depreciation under Section 32-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

HVK International Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT, C.C.3
72 Taxmann.com 208 · 2016 · High Court
10
citing judgments

Reopening of assessment is valid when the Assessing Officer relies on an Investigation Wing report, applies their mind to the material, and forms a belief that income has escaped assessment, even if the issue was previously examined during scrutiny assessment.

Tarasafe International (P.) Ltd. v. DDIT
168 Taxmann.com 514 · 2024 · Reported
7
citing judgments
225 (Gujarat) v. M Procon Pvt. Ltd., v. Assistant Director of Income-tax
168 Taxmann.com 517 · 2024 · High Court
7
citing judgments

Judgments on Section 80-IB

ACIT, Central Circle-2(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Amricon Agrovat Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2300/KOL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Mar 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon'Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Hon'Ble Sri Waseem Ahmed, Am] Assessment Year : 2013-14 A.C.I.T., Central Circle-2(1) -Vs- M/S. Amricon Agrovat (P).Ltd., Kolkata Kolkata (Pan Aadca 1610 Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant: Shri.S.Dasgupta Addl.Cit Dr For The Respondent: Shri D.S.Damle, Fca Date Of Hearing : 15.2.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 01.03.2018. Order Per Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against Order Dated 27.9.2016 Of Cit(A)-20, Kolkata, Relating To Ay 2013-14. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Revenue In This Reads As Follows: “(I) That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Accepting That The Term 'Manufacture' Occurring In The Context Of Section 80-Ib Does Not Necessarily Require That The End Product Of The Manufacturing Process Is To Be Completely Different From The Ingredients, As Regards Its Chemical Composition, Integral Structure Or Its Use. (Ii) That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Accepting That The Process Of Manufacturing Of Poultry Feeds Does Not Amount To Mere Mixing Together Of All Different Ingredients, Without Involving Any Change In The Chemical Composition Of The Ingredients. (Iii) That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Accepting That The Process Of Preparation Of Poultry Feeds Amount To Production Of An Article Within The Meaning Of Section 80Ib. (Iv) That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Allowing The Entire Amount Of Rs.1,12,50,626/- Claimed As Deduction U/S 80-Ib.

For Appellant: Shri.S.Dasgupta Addl.CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri D.S.Damle, FCA
Section 14ASection 80Section 801B(4)Section 80I

Florida Towers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-1(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 925/KOL/2015[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Aug 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.925/Kol/2015 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10 Floride Towers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. I.T.O, Ward-1(3), Kolkata 8,Camac Street, Shantiniketan Building, 5Th Floor, Room No.2, Kolkata-700017 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacf7811P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By :Shri R. P. Agarwal, Sr. Counsel & Shri Nirav Seth, Aca Respondent By :Shri Arindambhattacharjee, Acit सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 21/08/2017 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30/08/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2009-10, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – I, Kolkata, In Appeal No.872/Cit(A)-1/W-1(3)/2014-15 Dated 25.02.2015, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Ao U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Dated 14.11.2011. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1.That In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Assessing Officer Eared In Disallowing The Claim For Deduction U/S 80-Ib Of Income Tax Act For Rs.26,11,744/-. The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Made By The Assessing Officer. 2.That In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Order Of The Assessing Officer Is Against The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & Bad In Law. The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Assessing Officer.

For Appellant: Shri R. P. Agarwal, Sr. Counsel &For Respondent: Shri ArindamBhattacharjee, ACIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80