Section 80IA(4) of the Income Tax Act

The decision most relied on for Section 80IA(4) is CIT v. ABG Heavy Industries Ltd. (322 ITR 323), cited in 229 of the 68 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 80IA(4)

CIT v. ABG Heavy Industries Ltd.
322 ITR 323 · 2010 · High Court
229
citing judgments

The Assessing Officer cannot deny a Section 80IA deduction by merely asserting that the assessee is not a "developer" without considering the relevant agreements and facts. Entitlement to Section 80IA deduction requires a thorough examination of the assessee's role as a developer.

CIT Assam v. The Panbari
57 ITR 422 · 1965 · Supreme Court
50
citing judgments

The substance of a transaction, not merely its form, determines whether a payment is a capital receipt (like a premium or salami for transferring a right to enjoy property) or revenue income (like periodical rent), even if the capital payment is made in instalments.

M/s. GVPR Engineers Ltd. v. ACIT
51 SOT 207 · 2012 · ITAT
49
citing judgments

An assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 80IA for an infrastructure project, even if they are a contractor executing only part of the work. Eligibility depends on the nature of the work undertaken, requiring an analysis to determine if the activity qualifies as that of a developer or a mere works contractor.

M/s Liberty India Vs. CIT 225 CTR 233(SC), CIT v. Sterling Foods
227 ITR 557 · 1997 · Supreme Court
32
citing judgments

Interest income earned from mandatory investments made as a condition of carrying on a business, such as for a contingency reserve under the Electricity (Supply) Act, is eligible for deduction under Section 80-IA as it is intrinsically linked to the business activity.

Asian Paints ltd. v. DCIT
225 ITR 447 · 1997 · Supreme Court
31
citing judgments

Income cannot be taxed if no real income has resulted, even if bookkeeping entries suggest otherwise. A tax liability cannot be attracted merely by following book-keeping methods if no actual income has been earned.

UOI v. Wood Papers Ltd.
4 SCC 256 · 1990 · Reported
29
citing judgments

In the interpretation of taxing statutes, exemption provisions are to be construed strictly, but once eligibility criteria are met, the exemption notification should be liberally construed to give it full play.

296 (Mumbai-Trib). PNC Construction Co Ltd. v. DCIT
92 Taxmann.com 106 · 2018 · Reported
28
citing judgments
CIT v. A.L. Logistics Pvt. Ltd.
374 ITR 609 · 2015 · High Court
26
citing judgments

An assessee is entitled to claim the benefit under Section 80IA(4)(i) even in the absence of a specific agreement with the Central/State Government, local authority or statutory body, if the proposal was accepted by the Government on certain conditions which were duly complied with.

Chetak Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (
134 ITD 269 · 2011 · ITAT
24
citing judgments
EID Parry India's v. CIT
23 Taxmann.com 348 · 2012 · High Court
20
citing judgments

Judgments on Section 80IA(4)

DCIT, DELHI vs. NOIDA TOLL BRIDGE COMPANY LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 6174/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmandcit, Vs. Noida Toll Bridge Company Ltd., Room No. 419, C.R. Building, Toll Plaza, Dnd Flyway, Ip Estate, New Delhi Mayur Vihar Link Road, Delhi – 110 091 (Pan: Aaacn3498A)

For Appellant: Sh. Mahesh Kumar, CIT(DR)For Respondent: None
Section 143(3)Section 80Section 80I

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CHENNAI vs. OLYMPIA TECH PARK (CHENNAI) PRIVATE LIMITED , CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for AY 2014-15 & 2015-16

ITA 3084/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy.S & Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.3081 & 3084/Chny/2025 िनधा#रण वष# /Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16

For Appellant: Mr. Ajith Kumar Choradia, C.A ()For Respondent: Mr. Bipin C.N, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80I

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CHENNAI vs. OLYMPIA TECH PARK (CHENNAI) PRIVATE LIMITED , CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for AY 2014-15 & 2015-16

ITA 3081/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy.S & Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.3081 & 3084/Chny/2025 िनधा#रण वष# /Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16

For Appellant: Mr. Ajith Kumar Choradia, C.A ()For Respondent: Mr. Bipin C.N, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80I

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2 1 1 , VADODARA, VADODARA vs. NETAFIM IRRIGATION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, VADODARA

In the result appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 2006/AHD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 80ISection 92BSection 92C

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2 1 1 , VADODARA, VADODARA vs. NETAFIM IRRIGATION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, VADODARA

In the result appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 2005/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 80ISection 92BSection 92C

RNS POWER LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, WARD-5(1)(1), BENGALURU

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1421/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Prasanna Urala, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115JSection 119Section 139Section 143Section 270ASection 80

BUILT UP,PUNE vs. ADIT, BANGLORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2531/PUN/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Feb 2026AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2019-20 Built Up Adit, Cpc, Bangalore 1, Samda Apartment, Vs. Dr Ketkar Margs, Ghodke Chowk, Pune – 411004 Pan: Aaefb6432D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri V L JainFor Respondent: Shri Chandra Vijay, CIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 80I

MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY TRANSMISSION COMPANY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ITO CIRCLE 14(1)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 2552/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Madhao VichoreFor Respondent: Shri Solgy Jose
Section 143(3)Section 14A

JCIT(OSD)-14(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY TRANSMISSION CO. LTD., MUMBAI

ITA 2093/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Madhao VichoreFor Respondent: Shri Solgy Jose
Section 143(3)Section 14A

PATEL SEW JOINT VENTURE,TELANGANA vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the cross-objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 884/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Dec 2025AY 2019-20
Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 80Section 801A(4)

AQUA TECH SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. PCIT (CENTRAL)-3, MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3855/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Acccountant Member

For Appellant: Ms. Simran Dhawan &For Respondent: Shri. Rajesh Kumar Yadav, CIT. DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 801A(4)

ACIT (CIR.) - 6(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. BHANDAR POWER LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1908/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14 Assistant Commissioner Of Bhandar Power Ltd. Income Tax, 14Th Floor, Essar House, Circle 6(1)(2), 11, K. K. Marg, Mahalaxmi, Vs. Mumbai Mumbai - 400034 (Pan: Aaacb6693B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Vijay Mehta, Fca & Shri Tarang Mehta, Advocate Revenue : Shri Satyaprakash R. Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.10.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), Delhi, Vide Order Dated 25.01.2018 Passed Against The Assessment Order By Ito 6(1)(4), Mumbai, U/S. 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 20.12.2016, For Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Grounds Taken By The Revenue Are Reproduced As Under: 1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Cit(A) Is Not Justified In Deleting The Disallowance Of Deduction U/S 80Ia Of The Income Tax Act Of Rs. 203,13,43,740/-Without Considering The Fact That The Provisions Of Section 801A(10) Is Clearly Attracted In This Case Hence The Assessee Is Not Eligible For Claiming Deduction U/S 801A Of The Income Tax Act.

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, FCA and Shri Tarang Mehta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Satyaprakash R. Singh, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 801ASection 801A(10)Section 80I

SAHYADRI FARMERS PRODUCER COMPANY LIMITED,NASHIK vs. ACIT CIRCLE - 1, NASHIK

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 951/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.951/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Sahyadri Farmers Producer Vs. Acit, Circle-1, Nashik. Company Limited, Survey No.1102/8, Behind Police Head Quarter, Adgaon, Nashik- 422003. Pan : Aapcs1516D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kishor B. Phadke Revenue By : Shri Amit Bobde Date Of Hearing : 30.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.10.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 03.03.2025 Passed By Ld. Addl./Jcit(A)-6, Delhi [‘Ld. Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “ (All The Grounds Are Without Prejudice To Each Other) 1. The Learned Addl/Jcit (A)-6 Delhi Erred In Law & Fact In Upholding Disallowance U/S Boib(114) Amounting To Rs.8,73,57,770 Made By Learned Dcit, Cpc (Hereinafter

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 143(1)Section 801BSection 80I

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VEJALPUR vs. MUNDRA INTERNATIONAL CONTAINER TERMINAL PVT. LTD. , KACHCHH

In the result, the grounds raised by the Revenue for AYs 2017-18 and 2018-19 are dismissed

ITA 1261/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalmundra International Container Dcit, Vs. Terminal Private Limited, Circle 2(1)(1), Navinal, New Mundra Port, Post Ahmedabad Box No.8, Mundra, Kutch [Pan : Aadca 0917 C]

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Rastogi, CIT-DR
Section 115Section 14ASection 250Section 80I

SUSHEE INFRA & MINING LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

ITA 1390/HYD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: CA Abhiroop BhargavFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

ACIT, CIRCLE-52(1), NEW DELHI vs. N.S.SOFTWARE , NEW DELHI

In the result, impugned order is upheld and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1834/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwalआअसं.1833 और 1834 /िद"ी/2019 (िन.व. 2013-14 और 2014-15)

For Appellant: S/Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate & Prince Bansal, CharteredFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Section 80I

ACIT, CIRCLE-52(1), NEW DELHI vs. 12, RING ROAD LAJPAT NAGAR-4, NEW DELHI

In the result, impugned order is upheld and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1833/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwalआअसं.1833 और 1834 /िद"ी/2019 (िन.व. 2013-14 और 2014-15)

For Appellant: S/Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate & Prince Bansal, CharteredFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Section 80I

DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. BOTHRA SHIPPING SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the ground of appeal no

ITA 780/KOL/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Sept 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2020-21 Dcit, Circle-7(1), Kolkata……………………………….……….……Appellant Vs. Bothra Shipping Services Pvt. Ltd ………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Sagar Estate, 2Nd Floor, Room No.10, Kol - 700001. [Pan: Aaecb6711E] Appearances By: Shri Raja Senguptda, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ankit Daga, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 04, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 12, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey:

Section 143(2)Section 801A(4)(c)Section 80I

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. GATEWAY DISTRIPARKS LIMITED, ANDHRA PRADESH

Accordingly, the Grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3816/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Jain, AR
Section 250Section 801ASection 801A(4)Section 80I

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. GATEWAY DISTRIPARKS LIMITED, ANDHRA PRADESH

Accordingly, the Grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3815/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Jain, AR
Section 250Section 801ASection 801A(4)Section 80I

Showing 1–20 of 68 · Page 1 of 4