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

Bhavani Gems, Mumbai vs. DCIT 16(3), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 6436/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma & Shri Pawan Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.6436 & 6437/Mum/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 & 2007-08) M/S. Bhavani Gems, Dy. Cit-16(3), बनाम/ 101, Prasad Chambers, Mumbai M. P. Marg, Opera House, Vs. Mumbai-400 004 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaafb 2302 G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Reepal Tralshawala ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Dr. Sandeep Goel सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 21.3.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 20.6.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per R. C. Sharma, A. M.: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Order By The Ld. Cit(A) For The Assessment Years (A.Ys.) 2006-07 & 2007-08, In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S.143(3) & 143 R/W S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Common Grievance In Both The Years Pertain To Decline Of Claim Of Additional Depreciation. In The A.Y. 2006-07, Scrutiny Assessment Was Framed U/S.143(3), Wherein After Calling Details Of Plant & Machinery So Installed During The Year, The Assessing Officer Has Allowed The Assessee’S Claim Of Additional Deprecation. Thereafter The (A.Ys. 2006-07 & 2007-08) M/S. Bhavani Gems Vs. Dy. Cit Assessment Was Reopended On The Plea That As Per The Decision Of Hon’Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Gem India Mfg. Co. [2001] 249 Itr 307 (Sc), Cutting & Polishing Of Diamonds Did Not Amount To Manufacture/Production. Accordingly, Additional Deprecation Was Disallowed & The Order Of Ao Was Confirmed By The Cit(A).

For Appellant: Shri Reepal TralshawalaFor Respondent: Dr. Sandeep Goel
Section 143(3)Section 80