Section 80-IE of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.143

Section 80-IE of the Income-tax Act, 1961 corresponds to section 143 (Special provisions in respect of certain undertakings in North-Eastern States) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 143 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-IE is Apex Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (135 Taxmann.com 286), cited in 148 of the 45 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 80-IE

Apex Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT
135 Taxmann.com 286 · 2022 · Supreme Court
148
citing judgments

Expenditure incurred by pharmaceutical companies on freebies provided to medical practitioners is not deductible under Explanation 1 to Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, as such gifting is prohibited by the Medical Council Regulations, 2002. The court also held that what is directly prohibited by law cannot be indirectly evaded through contrivance.

Orissa State Warehousing Corpn v. CIT
237 ITR 589 · 1999 · Supreme Court
114
citing judgments

A fiscal statute must be interpreted strictly based on its plain language, without substituting judicial impressions for legislative intent. Exemptions and exclusions within such statutes must also be construed strictly and cannot be extended through interpretation.

CIT v. Tara Agencies
292 ITR 444 · 2007 · Supreme Court
80
citing judgments

When interpreting fiscal legislation, courts must adhere strictly to the plain and unambiguous language of the statute, without introducing intendment, equity, or words not present in the text, irrespective of perceived hardship. The legislative intent must be gathered solely from what has been said and not said in the statutory language.

Best Trading and Agencies Limited v. DCIT
119 Taxmann.com 129 · 2020 · High Court
45
citing judgments

The computation provisions for long-term capital gains, including the benefit of indexation under sections 45, 48, and 112, are applicable when determining book profits under section 115JB(5) for Minimum Alternate Tax, unless explicitly overridden, ensuring the 'real income' is taxed.

Form No. 10B. In Trust For Reaching The Unreached Through Trustee v. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Ahmedabad
126 Taxmann.com 77 · 2021 · High Court
34
citing judgments

A trust substantially satisfying the conditions for exemption under Section 11 cannot be denied that exemption solely due to a procedural delay in furnishing the audit report in Form No. 10, as the submission of the form is considered a procedural rather than a mandatory condition.

A.V. Fernandez v. State of Kerala
8 STC 561 · 1957 · Supreme Court
21
citing judgments

Taxing statutes must be strictly construed, and their clear language does not allow for inference or equity. Exemptions and exclusions must also be strictly construed and cannot be extended by interpretation.

Similarly, in B. Premanand v. Mohan Koikal
4 SCC 266 · 2011 · Reported
19
citing judgments

Where the statutory language is plain and unambiguous, external aids like precedents cannot be used to obscure or rewrite the legislative command.

Apex Laboratories (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT
286 Taxmann 200 · 2022 · Supreme Court
16
citing judgments
10B. In Navbharat Charitable Trust v. Income
150 Taxmann.com 311 · 2023 · ITAT
15
citing judgments

Exemption for a charitable trust under sections 11/12 cannot be denied solely due to the delayed filing of the audit report in Form No. 10B, provided all other conditions for exemption have been substantially met.

Karnataka State Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. v. DCIT
76 Taxmann.com 360 · 2016 · ITAT
13
citing judgments

The expression 'any income' in Section 10(38) refers to long-term capital gains computed under Section 48, which includes the indexed cost of acquisition. This principle applies when computing book profits under Section 115JB.

Judgments on Section 80-IE

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

Priyanshu Boiragi, Guwahati vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Guwahati

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 61/GTY/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati24 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2014-15 Priyanshu Boiragi Acit, Circle-1, Guwahati 16, Prasanti Path, Basistha Vs. Road, Survey Guwahati, Assam- 781028. Pan: Aiapb 4499 G (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Jay Prakash Gupta, Fca Respondent By : Shri N.T. Sherpa, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 26.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.07.2023 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: This Appeal Of The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2012-13 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27.10.2021 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Appeals, Nfac, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Ld. Cit(A)’]. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “I. For That Both The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac As Well As Ld. J.A.O. Are Not Justified In Confirming/Rejecting The Petition Filed U/S. 154 Of I.T. Act 1961 Claiming Deduction U/S. 80(Ie) In Respect Of Vat Remission Claimed As Revenue Receipt In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case Ii. For That The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Was Not Justified Also In Not Considering The Cbdt Circular No. 39/2016 (F. No.279/Misc/140/2015/Itj Dated 29.11.2016 & No. 68 (F. No.245/17/71-A & Pac) Dated 17.11.1971 As Submitted By The Appellant Online Firstly On 16.01.2016 & Secondly On 05.10.2021 Vide Annexures - 5 & 6 In The Appellant'S Written Submission Dated 16.01.2021 While Passing The Appellate Order U/S. 250 Of I.T. Act 1961 Iii. For That The Ld. A.O. Has Not Considered In Right Perspective Rectification Petition Dated 21.04.2016, 09.04.2019 16.03.2020 Submitted Online Vide Annexure - 3 Of Appellant'S Written Submission Dated 16.01.2021. 2 Priyanshu Boiragi A.Y. 2014-15 Iv. For That The Other Grounds Of Law As Well As Of Facts, The Appellant May Be Allowed To Raise On Or Before The Hearing Of The Case.”

For Appellant: Shri Jay Prakash Gupta, FCAFor Respondent: Shri N.T. Sherpa, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 80