Section 80IB of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.141

Section 80IB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 corresponds to section 141 (Deduction in respect of profits and gains from certain industrial undertakings) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 141 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 80IB is Liberty India v. CIT (317 ITR 218), cited in 571 of the 1,094 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.

K.C. Builders & Anr. v. ACIT
265 ITR 562 · 2004 · Supreme Court
241
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. 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
203
citing judgments

Subsidies and excise duty refunds that are accounted for in the Profit and Loss account are revenue in nature, form part of business income, and are eligible for deductions under Section 80IB/80IC. Such receipts cannot be reduced from the block of assets for depreciation calculation.

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
163
citing judgments

Excise duty collected by the assessee as an agent on behalf of the government is not includible in the total turnover for the purpose of computing deduction under section 80HHC.

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.

IPCA Laboratories Ltd. v. DCIT
266 ITR 521 · 2004 · Supreme Court
122
citing judgments

When the provisions of a fiscal statute are unambiguous, they must be interpreted strictly, and benefits not explicitly provided cannot be conferred by ignoring or misinterpreting the clear words in the section.

Judgments on Section 80IB

M/S Seaward Developers (P) Ltd., Panvel vs. ITO, Ward - 7(2)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the AO stands dismissed

ITA 2583/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jan 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: S/Sh. Rajendra & Sandeep Gosainआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.2583/M/2013,िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year-2006-07 M/S. Seaward Developers (P) Ltd. Income Tax Officer C/O., Sajid Murghey,7/14,Bushra Park Ward-7(2)(2)Aayakar Bhavan 52-Bunglow Area,Panvel-410 206 Vs Maharshi Karve Marg Pan:Aaics 4655 E Mumbai-400 020. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) आयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.2545/M/2013,िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year-2009-10 Income Tax Officer M/S. Seaward Developers (P) Ltd. Ward-7(2)(2), Mumbai. Vs Panvel-410 206. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) िनधा"रती ओर से/Assessee By : Shri A.K. Sharma-Ar राज" की ओर से/ Revenue By : S/Shri Sachidanand Dubey & Aarsi Prasad (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 16-11-2015 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 01.01.2016 आयकर अिधिनयम,1961 1961 की धारा 254 254(1)के अ"ग"त आदेश 1961 1961 254 254 Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा सद" राजे" के अनुसार Per Rajendra, Am- Challenging The Orders Of Cit(A)-13, Mumbai The Assessee & The Assessing Officer (Ao) Have Filed Appeals For The Above Mentioned Two Assessment Years (Ay.S).

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Sharma-ARFor Respondent: S/Shri Sachidanand Dubey and Aarsi Prasad (DR)
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 80I

Strapping Solutions P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 9(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

ITA 1926/MUM/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jan 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: S/Sh. Rajendra & Sandeep Gosainआयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं/.Ita No. 1926/Mum/2012,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष"/Assessment Year-2003-04 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं/.Ita No. 1927/Mum/2012,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष"/Assessment Year-2004-05 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Strapping Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer-9(3)(2) 703, Autumn Grove, Lokhandwala Aayakar Bhavan Township, Kandivali -East Vs Mumbai-20. Mumbai-400 101 Pan: Aafcs 5628 C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) िनधा"रती िनधा"रती ओर ओर सेसेसेसे/Assessee By : Shri Vimal Punmiya-Ar िनधा"रती िनधा"रती ओर ओर राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Sachidanand Dubey-Dr सुनवाई सुनवाई क" क" तारीख तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 18.11.2015 सुनवाई सुनवाई क" क" तारीख तारीख घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 01.01.2016 आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 आदेश 1961 1961 क" 1961 क" धारा धारा 254 254 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त 254 अ"तग"त 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 Orders Dt.10.01.2012 Of Cit(A)-20,Mumbai,The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeals.Effective Grounds Of Appeal For Both The Years Is Confirmation Of Penalty Order Levied By The Ao U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya-ARFor Respondent: Shri Sachidanand Dubey-DR
Section 10ASection 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

Jaycee Homes Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 8(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part for statistical purposes

ITA 429/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.429/Mum/2011 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2007-08) Jaycee Homes Ltd., Ground Vs. Ito 8(2)(1), Mumbai Floor, Panchratna, Panch Marg, Off Yari Road, Varsova, Andheri(W), Mumbai-400061 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aabcj 0791 K ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri M.G.Vashi याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 16/11/2015 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 30/12/2015 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A)- Mumbai, For The Assessment Year 2007-08, Wherein The Assessee Is Aggrieved For Addition Of Rs.1,71,66,084/-. 2. Rival Contentions Have Been Heard & Record Perused. Facts In Brief Are That Assessee Is Engaged In Construction & Development Work. During The Year Under Consideration, The Assessee Has Shown Total Sales (Of Flats) Of Rs.15,13,42,036/- Against Which Profit As Per P&L A/C. Has Been Shown Of Rs.43,64,225/-. During The Year The Assessee Had Claimed Deduction U/S.80Ib Of Rs.37,62,803/-. The Claim U/S.80Ib Was Subsequently Revised To Rs.1,41,19,017/-. After Filing The Original Return, The Assessee Revised Its Computation Wherein The Ao Observed That The Assessee Has Enhanced Its Claim Of Deduction U/S.80Ib From Rs.37,62,803/- To Rs.1,41,19,017/-. On Further Analysis, It Was Observed

For Appellant: Shri M.G.VashiFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal
Section 115Section 80I

Monsanto India Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 8(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed, whereas appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 8545/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.8338/Mum/2010 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2006-2007) Adcit-8(2), Mumbai Vs. M/S Monsanto India Limited, 5Th Floor, Ahura Centre, 96, Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri (East) Mumbai- 400093 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaacm 2875 L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. & आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.8545/Mum/2010 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2006-2007) M/S Monsanto India Limited, 5Th Vs. Acit-8(2), Mumbai Floor, Ahura Centre, 96, Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri (East) Mumbai-400093 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaacm 2875 L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri N.P.Singh ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Rajan Vora सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 14/09/2015 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 14/12/2015 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M):

For Appellant: Shri Rajan VoraFor Respondent: Shri N.P.Singh
Section 10(1)Section 145ASection 14ASection 2(1)(a)Section 234BSection 80I