Section 80IC of the Income Tax Act

The decision most relied on for Section 80IC is ACB India Ltd. v. ACIT (374 ITR 108), cited in 364 of the 1,180 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 80IC

ACB India Ltd. v. ACIT
374 ITR 108 · 2015 · High Court
364
citing judgments

When computing disallowance under Section 14A of the Income-tax Act using Rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules, only investments that have actually yielded exempt income during the relevant previous year are to be considered for the calculation.

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.

TM) Vishnu Jaiswal v. CIT
357 ITR 146 · 2013 · High Court
272
citing judgments

If the Assessing Officer has not conducted any investigation and thus has not discharged their burden of proof, any addition made by the AO is unsustainable and must be deleted.

CIT v. Ashwani Gupta
322 ITR 396 · 2010 · High Court
262
citing judgments

Proceedings become fatal if principles of natural justice are violated, such as when seized material is not provided to the assessee or cross-examination of a person whose statement the Assessing Officer relies upon is denied.

Sony India (P) Ltd. v. DCIT
114 ITD 448 · 2008 · ITAT
131
citing judgments

For transfer pricing purposes, functionally dissimilar entities that have significant business differences must be excluded from the list of comparables for benchmarking analysis. It also provides guidance on the non-allocation of advertisement, marketing, and promotion (AMP) expenses to other entities when incurred solely for the assessee's business.

Lachminarayan Madan Lal v. CIT
86 ITR 439 · 1972 · Supreme Court
96
citing judgments

Even with an existing agreement, the deductibility of an amount claimed as an expenditure, such as commission, must be decided based on the specific facts and circumstances of each case, to ascertain if it was laid out wholly and exclusively for business purposes.

Vishnu Borewell v. ITO
333 ITR 237 · 2011 · High Court
86
citing judgments

The validity of reopening an assessment or the sufficiency of evidence for reassessment proceedings must be based on direct or circumstantial evidence. This case supports the principle that such actions cannot be based on mere suspicion.

Atma Ram Properties Private Ltd. v. Deputy CIT
343 ITR 141 · 2012 · High Court
83
citing judgments

An assessment cannot be reopened under Section 147 after four years if the assessee has made a full and true disclosure of all material facts, even if a claim made was later found incorrect, and the reasons recorded do not specify a failure to disclose.

CIT v. Naresh Khattar (HUF)
261 ITR 664 · 2003 · High Court
75
citing judgments

An adverse inference cannot be drawn against an assessee solely based on uncorroborated loose papers found during a search or on a statement made during the search that is later retracted, unless the Assessing Officer conducts independent enquiry to establish the facts.

CIT v. Dinesh Jain HUF (Delhi HC)
352 ITR 629 · 2013 · High Court
71
citing judgments

To make an addition under Section 69B for undisclosed investment, the Revenue must first prove that an understatement of investment has occurred and that the assessee made the undisclosed investment. The burden of proof lies with the Revenue, and additions cannot be based merely on presumptions or assumptions without corroborative material.

Judgments on Section 80IC

Sharda Exports, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-2, Meerut

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7715/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Apr 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2014-15] Sharda Exports, Vs Dcit, B-96, Eastern Avenue, Circle-2, Meerut, Sainik Vihar Farms, Uttar Pradesh-250001 New Delhi-110061. Pan-Abofs0079G Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Raj Kumar Gupta, Ca & Shri J.P. Sharma Ca Respondent By Ms. Amish S. Gupt, Cit. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.04.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 16.04.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 20.08.2025 Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Cit(A), Meerut/10103/2018-19 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Order Dated 28.03.2018 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 263 Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. It Is Observed That The Appeal Was Filed Delayed By 26 Days. Before Us, An Application For Condonation Of Delay As Filed Alongwith An Affidavit Of One Shri Juzar Singh, Senior Office Admin & Audit Manager Of M/S Raj Kumar & Associates, Chartered Accountants. In The Said Petition, It Is Stated That Assessee Has Sent The Appellate Order For The Preparation Of The Appeal To The Office Of Its Counsel Shri Raj Kumar, Ca Where The Same Was Delivered To Shri Juzar Singh & Was Got Mixed Up With The Audit Papers & Skipped His Attention To Deliver It To Shri Raj Kumar. Later When The Said Order Was Come To The Notice Of Shri Juzar Singh, He Immediately Rushed & Handed The Same To Shri Raj Kumar For The Preparation & Filing The Appeal. Due To This Reason The Appeal Was Filed Delayed By 26 Days. This Fact Was Affirmed By Shri Juzar Singh In His Affidavit. It Is Thus Submitted That The Delay Was Neither Intentional Nor Willful & Occurred Due To Bonafide Reason Thus It Is Requested To Condone The Delay.

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 80I

ACIT, Circle 5(1), Chandigarh vs. M/S Venus Remedies Ltd., Chandigarh

The appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 742/CHANDI/2009[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Mar 2026AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.742/Chandi/2009 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Acit Circle 5(1) M/S Venus Remedies Ltd. बनाम/ Vs. Sco 40-41, Sector 17-A Sco 39, Sector – 26 Chandigarh – 160017 Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacv-6524-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant : Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal (Ca), Sh. Jaspal Sharma (Advocate)&Ms. Shruti Khandelwal (Advocate) – By Ld. Ars ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Yamini (Cit) - Ld. Dr (Virtual) सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02.02.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.03.2026 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1.1 Aforesaid Appeal For Assessment Year (Ay) 2006-07 Has Come Up For Hearing Before Us Pursuant To The Directions Of Hon’Ble Punjab & Haryana High Court In Revenue’S Appeal Ita No.81-2012 Dated 25-07-2024 Wherein Following Substantial Questions Of Law Were Determined: - 1. Weather On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Hon’Ble Itat Was Right In Upholding The Decision Of Ld. Cit(A) Who Directed The Ao To Reallocate The Expenses On Sales Ratio & To Reduce The Addition To Rs.142.24 Lacs As Against The Addition Of Rs.7,61,96,306/- On Account Of Unexplained Expenditure U/S 69C?

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal (CA), Sh. Jaspal SharmaFor Respondent: Sh. Yamini (CIT) - Ld. DR (Virtual)
Section 35(2)Section 4Section 69CSection 80I