Section 80IA(4) of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.138

Section 80IA(4) falls under section 80IA of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which corresponds to section 138 (Deductions in respect of profits and gains from industrial undertakings or enterprises engaged in infrastructure development, etc) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 138 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 80IA(4) is CIT v. ABG Heavy Industries Ltd. (322 ITR 323), cited in 229 of the 475 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.

M/s. GVPR Engineers Ltd. v. ACIT
51 SOT 207 · 2012 · ITAT
89
citing judgments

Deduction under section 80-IA is available to developers who undertake entrepreneurial investment risk, not merely to contractors who undertake business risk. The nature of the work undertaken determines eligibility.

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

Expenditure incurred for acquiring a lease is capital expenditure if it brings into existence an asset or advantage for the enduring benefit of the business. The court distinguishes between 'premium' and 'rent' based on the parties' conscious choice of terms.

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

Income from a deferred VAT rebate granted by a state government for sales tax incentives is not considered income derived from an industrial undertaking and is therefore not eligible for deduction under Section 80IC.

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

Reopening an assessment is not permissible solely on the basis of a change of opinion by the Assessing Officer if there was a full disclosure of material facts by the assessee during the original assessment under section 143(3).

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

Where an assessee enters into a development contract where it undertakes all acts from project design to handing over, it is considered to be developing a facility as a whole, not performing a specific work. This implies the ownership of the site is not transferred.

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

Unabsorbed depreciation of an amalgamating company cannot be added to the written down value of assets in the hands of the amalgamated company. The Supreme Court has dismissed a special leave petition against a High Court decision on this point, implicitly upholding this proposition.

Judgments on Section 80IA(4)

DCIT 9(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Dodson Lindblom Hydro Power P.Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 6704/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Sh. Rajendra & C. N. Prasadआयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./6704/Mum/2016, िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2012-13 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Dy. Cit 9(3)(1) M/S. Dodson Lindblom Hydro Power Pvt. 215, 2Nd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Ltd. Mumbai - 400020 Vs. 6-Shiv Vastu, Tejpal Scheme Road No.5, Vile Parle (E),Mumbai - 400057 Pan:Aaacd7612A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Ram Tiwari-Dr Assessee By: Shri Pankaj K. Jain-Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 12/06/2018 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 12/06/2018 आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम क" क" धारा धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा सद"य सद"य,राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार अनुसार /Per Rajendra, Am- लेखा लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Challenging The Order Dated 24.08.2016 Of Cit(A)-16, Mumbai,The Assessing Officer (Ao) Has Filed The Present Appeal. Assessee-Company,Engaged In The Business Of Generation Of Hydro Electric Power, Filed Its Return Of Income On 21.09.2012, Declaring Total Income At Rs.2.57 Crore, Later On A Revised Return Was Filed On 19.08.2013 Declaring Income At Rs.1.96 Crores.On 25.09. 2013,The Assessee Revised The Return For The Second Time Disclosing Income Of Rs.3.57 Cores. The Ao Completed The Assessment On 28.02.2015,U/S.143(3) Of The Act,Determining Its Income At Rs. 5.53 Crores.

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj K. Jain-ARFor Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari-DR
Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 36(1)(iii)