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 262 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
88
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 cutting jumbo roll films into flat and small rolls in desired sizes is considered manufacture or production for the purposes of the Income-tax Act.

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 activity for the purpose of producing mineral ores, as ore is a 'thing' resulting from effort.

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

For an activity to be considered 'manufacture', it must result in a transformation where a new and different article emerges with a distinctive name, character, or use.

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

Specified intangible assets like business claims, information, records, contracts, employees, and know-how acquired under a slump sale are considered 'business or commercial rights' eligible for depreciation under section 32(1)(ii).

Judgments on Section 80-IC

Varadayampalayam Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society, Coimbatore vs. Income Tax Officer, Coimbatore

The appeal stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2799/CHNY/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Feb 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2799/Chny/2024 (िनधा'रणवष' / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Varadayampalayam Primary Agricultural Ito बनाम/ Co-Operative Credit Society Non-Corporate Ward-1(4), #31, Kattampatty, Ss Kullam Via Coimbatore. Vs. Coimbatore Dist. 641 107. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabak-0997-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms. R. Reshma (Advocate) - Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Ashwin D. Gowda (Addl.Cit) - Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27-01-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-02-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19 Arises Out Of The Order Of Learned Addl. / Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Thane [Cit(A)] Dated 26-09-2024 In The Matter Of An Intimation Issued By Cpc U/S 143(1) Of The Act On 30-09-2020. 2. In The Intimation U/S 143(1), The Assessee Was Denied Deduction U/S 80P For Rs.2.06 Lacs Since The Return Of Income Was Filed With A Delay. The Assessee Filed Return Of Income On 31-03-2019 Which Was Processed U/S 143(1) On 30-09-2020 Denying Impugned Deductions To The Assessee. During Appellate Proceedings, The Assessee Relied On Certain Case Laws

For Appellant: Ms. R. Reshma (Advocate) - Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashwin D. Gowda (Addl.CIT) - Ld. Sr. DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 142Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 80Section 80ASection 80P