Section 80IB of the Income Tax Act

The decision most relied on for Section 80IB is Liberty India v. CIT (317 ITR 218), cited in 571 of the 168 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 80IB

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.

CIT v. Sterling Foods
237 ITR 579 · 1999 · Supreme Court
311
citing judgments

Income eligible for profit-linked deductions under sections like 80-IC or 10B must have a direct nexus to the eligible business activity or be derived from the industrial undertaking itself, and not merely attributable to it or arising from a post-manufacturing event.

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. 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. Meghalaya Steels Ltd.
383 ITR 217 · 2016 · Supreme Court
186
citing judgments

The Supreme Court determines the eligibility of subsidies for deduction under industrial incentive sections, specifically 80IB and 80IC of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

K.C. Builders & Anr. v. ACIT
265 ITR 562 · 2004 · Supreme Court
165
citing judgments

When the addition made in the assessment order, on the basis of which a penalty for concealment under section 271(1)(c) is levied, is subsequently deleted, the penalty has no basis and must be cancelled.

CIT v. Paul Brothers
216 ITR 548 · 1995 · High Court
164
citing judgments

Once a claim for deduction under section 80-IA or 80-IB is allowed in the initial assessment year and is not subsequently withdrawn, the revenue is estopped from denying the deduction for subsequent years on the same grounds.

CIT v. Lakshmi Machine Works
290 ITR 667 · 2007 · Supreme Court
153
citing judgments

Excise duty and sales tax must be excluded from 'total turnover' when calculating deductions under Chapter VI-A, such as Section 80HHC or 80IA, to ensure that the export turnover and total turnover are on a comparable basis.

ACG Associated Capsules (P) Ltd. v. CIT
343 ITR 89 · 2012 · Supreme Court
144
citing judgments

For calculation of deduction under Section 80HHC, if total interest is netted off after adjusting interest paid and received, the 90% reduction specified in Explanation (baa) is not applicable.

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 80IB

JCIT (OSD), CORPORATE CIRCLE - 2 (2),, CHENNAI vs. M/S INDIAN POTASH LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2580/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2580/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Joint Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Indian Potash Ltd., Income Tax (Osd), No. 727, Ambal Building, Corporate Circle 2(2), Anna Salai, Chennai. Chennai 600 006. [Pan: Aaaci0888H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Y. Sudarshan, Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 27.01.2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 10.03.2026 : आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 06.05.2019 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 6, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Appellant-Revenue Raised 3 Grounds Of Appeal Amongst Which The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Allowing Claim Under Section 80Ib Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri Y. Sudarshan, JCITFor Respondent: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate
Section 11ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 80Section 80I

Showing 120 of 168 · Page 1 of 9

...