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

M/S. Sheela Foadm (P) Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 5902/DEL/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jun 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Sh. I.C. Sudhir & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2004-05 M/S. Sheela Foam (P.) Ltd., C-55, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Preet Vihar, Vikas Marg, Delhi Tax, Circle-8(1), New Delhi Gir/Pan : Aaacs0189B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By S/Sh. Ajay Vohra & Gaurav Jain, Advocates; Ms. Bhavita Kumar, Adv. Respondent By Smt. Anima Barnwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13.04.2016 Date Of Pronouncement 02.06.2016 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Order Dated 17/08/1012 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Xi, New Delhi, For Assessment Year 2004-05 In Respect Of Penalty Levied Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short “The Act”) By The Assessing Officer. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: 1. That The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred On Facts & In Law In Not Holding That The Order Dated 27.03.2009 Passed By The Assessing Officer Levying Penalty Under Section 271(1 )(C) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) Was Beyond Jurisdiction, Bad In Law & Void Ab Initio. 1.1 That The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred On Facts & In Law In Not Holding That The Penalty Order Under Section 271(1 )(C) Was Beyond Jurisdiction, Bad In Law & Void Ab-Initio, In As Much As The Same Was Initiated On Issues For Which No Prima Facie Satisfaction, Qua Concealment/Furnishing Of Inaccurate Particulars Of Income, Was Discernible From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Act. Without Prejudice 2. That The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred On Facts & In Law

Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 68Section 80Section 801BSection 80I

Jindal Drugs Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 8, Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the CO filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 5394/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shjogindersingh & Rajendraआयकर अपील सं./Ita/5394/Mum/2013,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Years: 2010-11 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" M/S. Jindal Drugs Ltd. Dy. Cit, Central Circle-8 6 B&C, Bhaktawar , Nariman Point Old, Cgo Complex 8Th Floor Vs. Mumbai-400 021. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020. Pan:Aaacj 1000 A. आयकर अपील सं./Ita/5495/Mum/2013,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Years: 2010-11 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Dy. Cit, Central Circle-8 Vs. M/S. Jindal Drugs Ltd. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020. Mumbai-400 021. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) ""या"ेप संसंसंसं./ C.O. No.242/Mum/2014 ""या"ेप ""या"ेप ""या"ेप आयकर अपील सं./Arising Out Of Ita/5495/Mum/2013,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Years: 2010-11 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Vs. Dy. Cit, Central Circle-8 M/S. Jindal Drugs Ltd. Mumbai-400 021. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020. Revenue By: Shri Ashish Heliwal Assessee By: Shri Ashok Mehta सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 21.03.2016 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 21.03.2016 आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आयकर आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम क" क" धारा धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार अनुसार Per Rajendra A.M.- लेखा लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Challenging The Order,Dated 10.6.2013,Of Cit(A)-37 Mumbai The Assessing Officer (Ao)And The Assessee Have Filed Cross-Appeals For The Year Under Consideration.The Assessee Has Also Filed Cross Objections.During The Course Of Hearing Before Us,The Ar Stated That The Assessee Was Not Interested In Pursuing The C.O. Filed By It.Hence,Same Stands Dismissed As Not Pressed.

For Appellant: Shri Ashok MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Heliwal
Section 254(1)Section 80I