Section 80-IC of the Income Tax Act

The decision most relied on for Section 80-IC is Textile Machinery Corporation Ltd. v. CIT (107 ITR 195), cited in 165 of the 80 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 80-IC

Textile Machinery Corporation Ltd. v. CIT
107 ITR 195 · 1977 · Supreme Court
165
citing judgments

A new industrial undertaking is not considered a reconstruction of an existing business for tax deduction purposes if it is a separate, independent production unit manufacturing commercially tangible products that can operate without losing its identity in the old business. The transfer and substantial use of assets and manpower from an old business to a new one may indicate reconstruction.

Indian Oil Panipat Power Consortium Ltd. v. ITO
315 ITR 255 · 2009 · High Court
112
citing judgments

Interest earned from the temporary parking of borrowed funds specifically intended for project development, prior to the commencement of business, constitutes a capital receipt inextricably linked to the project and is not taxable as 'income from other sources'.

ITO v. Arihant Tiles and Marbles Pvt. Ltd.
320 ITR 79 · 2010 · Supreme Court
84
citing judgments

For the purpose of claiming deductions under sections like 10B, 80IC, 80HHC, 80J, and 80I, a process must amount to 'manufacture' as defined under Section 2(29BA), involving genuine value addition or chemical transformation.

Indian Cine Agencies v. CIT
308 ITR 98 · 2009 · Supreme Court
59
citing judgments

The activity of converting jumbo rolls of photographic films into smaller flats and rolls of desired sizes constitutes 'manufacture'. This principle clarifies that 'manufacture' includes processes that transform raw or prepared materials into articles for use by changing their form or utility.

Commissioner of Central Excise v. Johnson & Johnson Ltd.
251 ITR 323 · 2001 · Supreme Court
46
citing judgments

The transformation of bulk powder into regulated, consumable capsules constitutes manufacturing under the definition provided in various statutes, qualifying for associated tax benefits and deductions.

1961, in Chrestian Mica Industries Ltd. v. State of Bihar
12 STC 150 · 1961 · Supreme Court
40
citing judgments

The definition of 'production' includes mining activities aimed at producing mineral ores, as ore is a result of human effort or process. This interpretation, originating from the Oxford English Dictionary, establishes that mining falls within the ambit of production.

Pr. CIT v. Aarham Softronics
412 ITR 623 · 2019 · Supreme Court
40
citing judgments

When an existing unit undertakes substantial expansion under Section 80-IC, the previous year in which the expansion occurs becomes the initial assessment year, entitling the unit to 100% deduction for 10 years from that year.

Empire Industries Ltd. v. Union of India
3 SCC 314 · 1985 · Supreme Court
38
citing judgments

Whether a commercial commodity has been transformed into a different commercial commodity with a distinct character, use, and name is a factual determination that depends on the specific circumstances of the case.

CIT v. R.M. Chidambaram
106 ITR 292 · 1977 · Supreme Court
36
citing judgments

Salary paid to a partner is merely a mode of sharing profits and retains the character of the firm's income. The payment is an adjustment of the amount the partner is entitled to receive based on their contribution of human capital, skill, and toil.

Areva T & D India Ltd. v. DCIT
20 Taxmann.com 29 · 2012 · High Court
34
citing judgments

Goodwill and commercial rights acquired before April 1, 2012, are not eligible for depreciation under Section 32(1)(ii) if they are not block assets. The depreciable nature of an asset depends on its inclusion in the block of assets.

Judgments on Section 80-IC

GRAND LEGACY,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 229/DDN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun12 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2018-19] Grand Legacy Vs Dcit Khasra No.384 Min/New Circle-1, No.642K, Dehra Khas Dehradun Adjoining Lal Pul Patel Uttarakhand Nagar, Dehradun Uttarakhand -248001 Pan-Aaifg4885D Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Rajan Malik & Shri A.K. Kashyap Respondent By Ms. Poonam Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 10.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 12.03.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 19.09.2025 By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), Nfac, Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Nfac/2017-18/10101141 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 26.03.2021 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 143(3A) & 143(3B) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Had Claimed Deduction U/S 80-Ic Of The Act Which Was Disallowed By The Ao For The Reason That The Assessee Has Not Fulfilled The Conditions Prescribed For Claiming Said Deduction & Initiated The Penalty Proceedings U/S 271A For Under Reporting As A Consequence Of Mis-Reporting Of Income. Thereafter, Ao Levied Penalty U/S 271A Of The Act Of Inr 67,820/- For Under Reporting By Invoking Clause (E) Of Sub-Section (9) Of Section 270A Of The Act.

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270ASection 271ASection 274Section 80Section 80I

Showing 120 of 80 · Page 1 of 4