Section 80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act

The decision most relied on for Section 80IB(10) is CIT v. Ansal Housing Finance & Leasing Co. Ltd. (354 ITR 180), cited in 208 of the 51 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 80IB(10)

CIT v. Ansal Housing Finance & Leasing Co. Ltd.
354 ITR 180 · 2013 · High Court
208
citing judgments

Vacant residential flats and commercial spaces held as stock-in-trade are subject to notional annual letting value calculation under Section 22 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. Brahma Associates
333 ITR 289 · 2011 · High Court
97
citing judgments

A developer is entitled to proportionate deduction under Section 80IB(10) for housing projects even if certain conditions, such as unit built-up area limits, are not fully met across all units. Additionally, the conditions introduced by Section 80IB(10)(d) apply prospectively to projects commenced and sanctioned before April 1, 2005.

CIT v. Vandana Properties
353 ITR 36 · 2013 · High Court
88
citing judgments

The Bombay High Court holds that for deduction under Section 80IB(10), the minimum plot area of one acre refers to the aggregate area of the land on which housing projects are developed, not necessarily to each individual project if multiple projects are undertaken on a larger single plot. This means the deduction is allowable even if a sub-block within the overall project is less than one acre, provided the total plot size meets the minimum.

CIT v. Sarkar Builders
375 ITR 392 · 2015 · Supreme Court
75
citing judgments

An assessee should not be prejudiced by differences in accounting treatment if accounting principles are duly followed and the issue is revenue neutral, as hypothetical income cannot be subjected to tax.

Viswas Promoters Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT
255 CTR 149 · 2013 · High Court
36
citing judgments

Where a portion of a project exceeds the prescribed area limit under section 80IB(10), deduction can be claimed on a pro-rata basis for the eligible portion of the project.

(i) Viswas Promoters Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant CIT, Circle I, Madras
29 Taxmann.com 19 · 2013 · High Court
28
citing judgments

Deduction under section 80-IB(10) is available on a proportionate basis for eligible units, even if some units in a project exceed the prescribed area limits. The entire claim should not be rejected due to partial non-compliance.

Ramco Cements Ltd. v. DCIT
373 ITR 146 · 2015 · High Court
28
citing judgments

An assessee can make a claim of deduction for the first time before the appellate authorities.

PCIT, Panaji v. Goa Tourism Development Ltd.
102 Taxmann.com 437 · 2019 · High Court
26
citing judgments
Siddhivinayak Kohinoor Venture v. ACIT
159 TTJ 390 · 2014 · ITAT
17
citing judgments

Judgments on Section 80IB(10)

DCIT, GURGAON vs. OMAXE LIMITED, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 2403/DEL/2025[2014]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2025

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Ms. Madhumita Roydcit, Vs. Omaxe Limited, Gurugram. 7, Local Shopping Centre, Kalkaji, New Delhi – 110 016. (Pan : Aaaco0171H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Akshat Jain, Ca Shri Rajat Jain, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Garima Mathur, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 23.09.2025 Date Of Order : 24.10.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Preferred By The Assessees Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Delhi-44 Dated 13.02.2025 For Ay 2014-15 Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “(I) Whether Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Allowing Deduction U/S 80Ib (10) Of The Act To The Tune Of Rs.5,22,08,123/- In Respect Of The Profits From Housing Project Which Are Group Housing Scheme Of Multi-Storied Flats In The Projects Namely M/S Royal Residency, Ludhiana? (Ii) Whether Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Following The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) - 19 For The Ay 2011-12 Wherein It Was Held That The Aforesaid Group Housing Scheme Is Separately Satisfying The Conditions Laid Down In The Provisions Of 2 Section 80Ib(10) Despite Observing That The Consolidated Approval Of The Local Authority Is For The Entire Project? (Iii) Whether The Decision Of Ld. Cit(A) Does Not Suffer From The Vice Of Perversity? (Iv) Whether Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts By Determining The Credit Spread At 500 Basis Points, Relying Upon The Guidelines Issued By Reserve Bank Of India For External Commercial Borrowing? (V) Whether Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts By Ignoring The Judgment Of Hon'Ble High Court?”

For Appellant: Shri Akshat Jain, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Garima Mathur, Sr. DR
Section 80I

Showing 120 of 51 · Page 1 of 3