Which cases are most cited on Section 80?

Similarly, in CIT v. Whirlpool of India Ltd. (318 ITR 347) — 17 citing judgments; CIT v. Capital Electronics (261 ITR 4) — 8 citing judgments; CIT v. Hughes Escorts Communications (165 Taxmann 318) — 8 citing judgments; Maruti Insurance Broking Private Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (435 ITR 34) — 6 citing judgments; CIT v. Capital Electronics( Gariahat) (257 ITR 677) — 5 citing judgments.

How many judgments are there on Section 80?

BharatTax indexes 144 ITAT, High Court and Supreme Court judgments that turn on Section 80 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Section 80 of the Income Tax Act

Q: What is the leading case on Section 80 of the Income Tax Act?

Similarly, in CIT v. Whirlpool of India Ltd. (318 ITR 347) is the decision most relied on for Section 80, cited in 17 judgments. Whether a business is considered 'setup' depends on the specific facts of each case, considering whether the business involves manufacturing or providing services, and the nature of those services.

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.121

Section 80 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 corresponds to section 121 (Submission of return for losses) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 121 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 is Similarly, in CIT v. Whirlpool of India Ltd. (318 ITR 347), cited in 17 of the 144 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 80

318 ITR 347 · 2009 · High Court

citing judgments

Whether a business is considered 'setup' depends on the specific facts of each case, considering whether the business involves manufacturing or providing services, and the nature of those services.

CIT v. Capital Electronics

261 ITR 4 · 2003 · High Court

citing judgments

CIT v. Hughes Escorts Communications

165 Taxmann 318 · 2007 · High Court

citing judgments

Maruti Insurance Broking Private Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

435 ITR 34 · 2021 · High Court

citing judgments

CIT v. Capital Electronics( Gariahat)

257 ITR 677 · 2002 · High Court

citing judgments

Judgments on Section 80

M/S. the Kolar & Chickballapur vs. The Asst. Commissioner

The appeal stands disposed of as indicated above

ITA/280/2015HC Karnataka01 Sept 2021

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 119(2)(b)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 260Section 260A

Addl. CIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Nortel Networks India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Accordingly, both the grounds of appeal raised by the ld AO are dismissed

ITA 504/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla & Shri Prashant Maharishiaddl. Cit, Vs. Nortel Networks India Pvt. Ltd, Special Range-6, Room No. 352, C-27, Ground Floor, Cr Building, Ip Estate, New Delhi Near Garden Of Five Senses Westend Marg, Paryavaran Complex, New Delhi Pan: Aabcn1424B (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. Nageshwar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Pramita M. Biswas, CIT DR

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(3)Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 72

ITO 2(2)(1), Mumbai vs. I.A. & I.C Pvt .Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, these appeals by Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 5316/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm)

Section 132(4)Section 153C

ACIT Cir-4(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Mark & Spencer Reliance India P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6703/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri G. Manjunathaacit, Circle-4(2)(2) Vs. Marks & Spencer Reliance Room No.640, 6Th Floor India Pvt.Ltd. 4Th Floor, Court House Aaykar Bhawan, M.K.Road Mumbai-400 020 Lokmanya Tilak Road Dhobi Talao Mumbai-400 002 Pan/Gir No.Aafcm5990D Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(3)Section 139(5)Section 4Section 80

B E Billimoria & Co Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT, City -1, Mumbai

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 2711/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Satish R. ModyFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar

Section 139(1)Section 139(3)Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 44ASection 80

M/S. Coast Liners Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 1(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1052/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Nov 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 72Section 80

Golden Computers Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT - 8(1), Mumbai

In the result, this ground of appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2783/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Nov 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm) Golden Computers Pvt Ltd Vs Dy.Cit 8(1), Unit No.602, 6Th Floor, Floor Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Deck Plaza, Midc, Andheri Mumbai-400020 (E), Mumbai-400 093 Pan : Aaacg1233E Appellant Respondednt

Section 143(3)Section 80

M/S Ajmer Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd., Ajmer vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ajmer

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1358/JPR/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT)

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 80

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Angoori Devi Educational & Curtural Society, New Delhi

Accordingly, appeal filed by the ld AO is dismissed

ITA 4886/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Aug 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishidcit(E), Vs. Smt. Angoori Devi Circle-2(1), Educational & Cultural New Delhi Society, 88A, Pocket-1, Mayor Vihar, Phase-1, New Delhi Pan: Aaata1505E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Kumar Goel, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. N. Pandey, Sr. DR

Section 11Section 12ASection 70Section 80

ITO 2(1)(4), Mumbai vs. Himalayan Sales P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2008-2009

ITA 5586/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu (Vp) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm)

For Appellant: Shri Devendra Jain (AR)For Respondent: Manoj Kumar Singh(DR)

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 148Section 48Section 50C

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Kerala State Construction Corporation Ltd

Appeal is allowed

ITA/237/2012HC Kerala07 Feb 2019

For Appellant: KERALA STATE CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION LTDFor Respondent: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Section 139(1)Section 139(3)Section 139(5)Section 72Section 80

Srikant Mohta, Kolkata vs. CIT, Central Circle - II, Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1988/KOL/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Jan 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara Ravi) Assessment Year: 2004-05 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Srikant Mohta..............................……….….............................…..……………….…...……..…….............Appellant P-31A, Kalakar Street Kolkata – 700 007 [Pan : Afapm 1673 C] Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-Ii, Kolkata..…........………………...…...........Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sanjay Modi, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri A.K. Singh, Cit D/R. Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 17Th , 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 16Th , 2019 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- Both These Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee & Are Directed Against The Separate But Identical Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax Central-Ii, Kolkata, (Ld. Cit(A)) Passed U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, (The ‘Act’), Dt. 08/09/2010, For The Assessment Year 2004-05 & Dt. 10/09/2010, For The Assessment Year 2006-07. 2. We First Take Up Ita No. 1988/Kol/2010; Assessment Year 2004-05, For Adjudication. The Disposal Of This Appeal Would Decide The Fate Of The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No. 1989/Kol/2010; Assessment Year 2006-07. 3. We Have Heard Rival Contentions. On Careful Consideration Of The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Perusal Of The Papers On Record, Orders Of The Authorities Below As Well As Case Law Cited, We Hold As Follows:- 4. We Find That The Hon’Ble Calcutta High Court Has In Itat No.19 Of 2015 Ga No.246 Of 2015 & Itat No.20 Of 2015 Ga No.247 Of 2015; Judgment Dt. June 25Th 2018, In The Assessee’S Own Case, Framed The Following Questions:-

Section 132Section 139Section 139(3)Section 153ASection 153A(1)(a)Section 263Section 72Section 80

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S.Cochin Refineries Ltd., Cochin

ITA/41/2002HC Kerala11 Dec 2018

For Appellant: M/S.COCHIN REFINERIES LTDFor Respondent: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 80

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) vs. M/S Mangalore Urban Development Authority

ITA/311/2018HC Karnataka11 Dec 2018

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath

Section 11Section 139(1)Section 14Section 2Section 260A

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Gurnam Arora, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the department is dismissed

ITA 158/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Dec 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’Ble & Smt. Beena A. Pillaiita No. 158/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs Sh. Gurnam Arora, Tax, Central Circle-28, 201, Vipps Centre, 2, Community New Delhi Complex, Masjid Moth, G.K.-Ii, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aajpa1064F Assessee By : Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 06.12.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.12.2018 Order Per N. K. Saini, Vide: This Is An Appeal By The Department Against The Order Dated 07.10.2014 Of Ld. Cit(A)-Iii, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Ms. Ananya Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. DR

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(3)Section 80

Dhiren A Modi, Mumbai vs. ITO 25 (3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1451/MUM/2009[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2018AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2005-06 Dhiren A. Modi 6, Sahyog Ito Ward 25(3)(2), C-11, Chs. Ltd., Mg Cross Road Bandrakurla Complex, Bandra Vs. No. 3, Kandivali (W), (E), Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400067. Pan No. Aeopm2083A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Nishit Gandhi, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Ram Tiwari, Dr Date Of Hearing : 03/08/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 31/10/2018

For Appellant: Mr. Nishit Gandhi, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Ram Tiwari, DR

Section 139(3)Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 43(5)Section 44ASection 80

Mr.Dinesh Kumar, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 544/BANG/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Sept 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Arun Kumar Garodiashri Dinesh Kumar, No.204, Ii Floor, Suraj Ganga Arcade, No.332/7, 14Th Cross, Jayanagar Ii Block, Bengaluru-560 011. … Appellant Pan:Aarpk 5648 P Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 7(2)(1), Bengaluru. … Respondent Appellant By : Shri K.Y.Ningoji Rao, Ca. Respondent By : Smt.Padmameenakshi, Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 10/07/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/09/2018 O R D E R Per Arun Kumar Garodia, Jm: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Which Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld.Cit(A)-10, Bengaluru, Dated 02/01/2018 For The Assessment Year 2007-08. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: Page 2 Of 6

For Appellant: Shri K.Y.Ningoji Rao, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Padmameenakshi, JCIT(DR)

Section 53ASection 54