Section 80IA of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.138

Section 80IA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 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 is Liberty India v. CIT (317 ITR 218), cited in 571 of the 1,796 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 80IA

Liberty India v. CIT
317 ITR 218 · 2009 · Supreme Court
571
citing judgments

The Supreme Court clarified that for profits and gains to be eligible for deductions under sections like 10B, 80IA, or 80IB, the income must be "derived from" or have a direct nexus to the eligible business activity. Income from incidental sources like the sale of scrips/licenses or interest on employee loans is generally not considered as derived from the eligible business for such deductions.

M.M.Aqua Technologies Limited v. CIT
436 ITR 582 · 2021 · Supreme Court
308
citing judgments

Amendments to tax law that impose new obligations or change existing legal positions apply prospectively, even if stated to be "for the removal of doubts." The judgment also clarifies that deductions under Section 43B are allowed only on actual payment, overriding the mercantile system of accounting.

Bajaj Tempo Ltd. v. CIT
196 ITR 188 · 1992 · Supreme Court
289
citing judgments

Provisions in taxing statutes that grant incentives, concessions, or exemptions for promoting economic growth and industrialization must be interpreted liberally and purposively. Any restrictions placed on such provisions should also be construed reasonably to advance their objective, not frustrate it.

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 v. Reliance Industries Ltd.
339 ITR 632 · 2011 · High Court
218
citing judgments

No substantial question of law arises regarding a subsidy granted for setting up a new industrial unit in a backward area for employment generation, as held by the Bombay High Court. This decision was subsequently set aside by the Supreme Court.

CIT v. Sitaldas Tirathdas
41 ITR 367 · 1961 · Supreme Court
146
citing judgments

Income is diverted by an overriding charge, and thus not taxable, when it never truly accrues to the assessee due to a prior obligation. Conversely, income that first accrues to the assessee and is then applied to discharge an obligation out of that income is taxable.

CIT v. Contimeters Electricals (P.) Ltd.
317 ITR 249 · 2009 · High Court
140
citing judgments

The requirement to file an audit report along with the return of income under section 80-IA(7) and similar provisions is directory, not mandatory. Such a report suffices if filed at any time before the assessment is framed.

CIT v. K. Srinivasan
83 ITR 346 · 1972 · Supreme Court
129
citing judgments

The term 'tax' includes surcharge and cess. Surcharge and additional surcharge are considered components of income tax, which can be levied as a basic charge, surcharge, special surcharge, and additional surcharge.

CIT v. My Home Power Ltd.
365 ITR 82 · 2014 · High Court
123
citing judgments

Receipts from the sale of carbon credits are capital receipts, not business income, as they arise from environmental concerns and not from business operations. Such receipts are not taxable under Sections 2(24), 28, 45, or 56 of the Act, especially prior to the introduction of Section 115BBG.

CIT v. Berger Paints (India) Ltd.
254 ITR 503 · 2002 · High Court
118
citing judgments

A deduction claimed under Section 80-IB (or 80-IA) cannot be denied solely on the ground of non-filing or delayed filing of the audit report in Form 10CCB, as such procedural requirements can be treated as directory, and delays may be condoned.

Judgments on Section 80IA

Gleg Engineers P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 9(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1696/MUM/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Nov 2015AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Pawan Singhआयकर अपील सं/ I.Ta Nos.1696, 7250 & 7251/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2003-04 To 2005-06 आयकर अपील सं/ I.Ta No.4456/Mum/2010 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2006-07 आयकर अपील सं/ I.Ta No.5046/Mum/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2007-08 आयकर अपील सं/ I.Ta No.1697/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2008-09 आयकर अपील सं/ I.Ta No.7780/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2009-10 बनाम/ M/S. Gleg Engineers Pvt. The Ito 9(1)(4), Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. 302-303, Dheeraj Plaza, Mumbai Hill Road, Bandra (W), Mumbai-400 050 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacg 8338G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By: Shri M. Subramanian ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Abani Kanta Nayak सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing :23.11.2015 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement :23.11.2015 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench:

For Appellant: Shri M. SubramanianFor Respondent: Shri Abani Kanta Nayak
Section 80I

Jagkumar & Co. Pvt.Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO., Ward-2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6152/MUM/2011[1995-96]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Nov 2015AY 1995-96

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu, Am & Shri Sanjay Garg, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.6151 To 6153 & 6123/Mum/2011 ("नधा"रण "नधा"रण "नधा"रण वष" "नधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years :1994-95 To 1997-98) वष" Jagkumar & Co. Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito Ward-2(2)(1), Mumbai 10/11, Prospect Chambers, Annexe-317-21, D.N.Road, Fort, Mumbai-400001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacj 1367 N .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" क" ओर ओर सेसेसेसे /Assessee By क" क" ओर ओर : Shri Sameer G. Dalal राज"व क" क" क" ओर क" ओर ओर सेसेसेसे /Revenue By ओर : Shri Akhilendra Yadav सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 04/08/2015 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 06/11/2015 आदेश आदेश / O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Sanjay Garg: This Order Shall Govern The Disposal Of Four Appeals, Filed By The Assessee, Arising Out Of The Order, Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Hereinafter Referred To As The Cit(A)], Mumbai, Relating To Assessment Years 1994-95 To 1997-98, On The Following Grounds :- “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Disallowing The Claim Of The Appellant For Deduction Under Section 80Ia Of The Act. 2. The Appellant Submits That The Cit(A) Has Erred In Holding That The Salary Register Was Not Authentic & In Concluding That The Appellant Had Failed To Bring Any Material On Record To Rebut The Statement Of The Director Made During The Survey Operations Ignoring The Submission Made In Appellate Proceedings & In Holding That The Order Of The Pto A Government Authority Was Self Serving & That The Conditions Of S.80Ia Were Thus Not Satisfied.”

Section 143(3)Section 80I

Jagkumar & Co. Pvt.Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO., Ward-2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6151/MUM/2011[1994-95]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Nov 2015AY 1994-95

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu, Am & Shri Sanjay Garg, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.6151 To 6153 & 6123/Mum/2011 ("नधा"रण "नधा"रण "नधा"रण वष" "नधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years :1994-95 To 1997-98) वष" Jagkumar & Co. Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito Ward-2(2)(1), Mumbai 10/11, Prospect Chambers, Annexe-317-21, D.N.Road, Fort, Mumbai-400001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacj 1367 N .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" क" ओर ओर सेसेसेसे /Assessee By क" क" ओर ओर : Shri Sameer G. Dalal राज"व क" क" क" ओर क" ओर ओर सेसेसेसे /Revenue By ओर : Shri Akhilendra Yadav सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 04/08/2015 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 06/11/2015 आदेश आदेश / O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Sanjay Garg: This Order Shall Govern The Disposal Of Four Appeals, Filed By The Assessee, Arising Out Of The Order, Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Hereinafter Referred To As The Cit(A)], Mumbai, Relating To Assessment Years 1994-95 To 1997-98, On The Following Grounds :- “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Disallowing The Claim Of The Appellant For Deduction Under Section 80Ia Of The Act. 2. The Appellant Submits That The Cit(A) Has Erred In Holding That The Salary Register Was Not Authentic & In Concluding That The Appellant Had Failed To Bring Any Material On Record To Rebut The Statement Of The Director Made During The Survey Operations Ignoring The Submission Made In Appellate Proceedings & In Holding That The Order Of The Pto A Government Authority Was Self Serving & That The Conditions Of S.80Ia Were Thus Not Satisfied.”

Section 143(3)Section 80I

Jagkumar & Co. P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6123/MUM/2011[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Nov 2015AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu, Am & Shri Sanjay Garg, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.6151 To 6153 & 6123/Mum/2011 ("नधा"रण "नधा"रण "नधा"रण वष" "नधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years :1994-95 To 1997-98) वष" Jagkumar & Co. Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito Ward-2(2)(1), Mumbai 10/11, Prospect Chambers, Annexe-317-21, D.N.Road, Fort, Mumbai-400001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacj 1367 N .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" क" ओर ओर सेसेसेसे /Assessee By क" क" ओर ओर : Shri Sameer G. Dalal राज"व क" क" क" ओर क" ओर ओर सेसेसेसे /Revenue By ओर : Shri Akhilendra Yadav सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 04/08/2015 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 06/11/2015 आदेश आदेश / O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Sanjay Garg: This Order Shall Govern The Disposal Of Four Appeals, Filed By The Assessee, Arising Out Of The Order, Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Hereinafter Referred To As The Cit(A)], Mumbai, Relating To Assessment Years 1994-95 To 1997-98, On The Following Grounds :- “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Disallowing The Claim Of The Appellant For Deduction Under Section 80Ia Of The Act. 2. The Appellant Submits That The Cit(A) Has Erred In Holding That The Salary Register Was Not Authentic & In Concluding That The Appellant Had Failed To Bring Any Material On Record To Rebut The Statement Of The Director Made During The Survey Operations Ignoring The Submission Made In Appellate Proceedings & In Holding That The Order Of The Pto A Government Authority Was Self Serving & That The Conditions Of S.80Ia Were Thus Not Satisfied.”

Section 143(3)Section 80I